Showing posts with label Dream Analysis Seminar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dream Analysis Seminar. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Carl Jung's Dream Analysis Seminar Lecture V 4 June 1930




LECTURE V 4 June 1930

We got as far with our dream as the meaning of the names Michel and Jalaubout, and now we come to the next point, the arrangement
of this new enterprise, this branch business.

You remember the dreamer said that he was explaining to an employee that the firm would be arranged as a compte-joint.

A joint account is, as the name expresses, a very close connection.

The new branch is almost integrated into his former business; the two firms, that is, are partially incorporated with each other.

That gives us a certain hint.

You may remember a former dream in which it was indicated that his psychology was split up into what we called compartments.

Here he joins another firm and incorporates a new branch into his former business in a very intimate way, and you can be sure that this new
enterprise has been in him for a long time, but in a sort of air-tight compartment which has now to be opened up.

The two different tendencies are coming together; we have here the first sign that they are blending.

He is a man who likes to have compartments for different parts of his psychology; he puts certain things in one drawer and other things into another, in the hope that they will never touch.

But in that former dream he already began to show these different compartments to his wife, in other words, to make her acquainted with the different sides of his own personality.

And he here makes a new and very serious attempt to organize those different sides in a business-like manner.

The dreamer says, then, that he is explaining his plans to employees-what he is going to do about it.

It often occurs in dreams that there are indifferent or obscure people about, and when one asks patients for their associations concerning them, they say they don't know, there are just people about, quite unimportant.

But obviously they are on the stage, playing a role, and we therefore ought to know what they are.

Have you an idea what employees would be in such a case?

Are there no theosophists to tell us something about it? Theosophists know everything!

Well, when one doesn't know the meaning of a symbol, one had better take it quite naively and say they must be something like what employees really
are in a business, that is, subordinate forces, sort of delegated powers, psychical factors that can be personified.

You see, our minds have the peculiarity, which we see in the whole structure of the nervous system, that certain ways of functioning become reflexes.

For instance, when you are learning to ride a bicycle, you have all the trouble in the world to keep your balance, till suddenly you get it; it has entered your system, you have delegated it to one
of the employees who is now trained to do that job for you, it holds the balance for you without your knowing it.

Of course, you would feel it as a subconscious factor, yet every part of the human psyche has a personal character.

One sees that quite easily in such experiments as table-rapping or table-turning.

These subconscious contents come to the surface then, and are produced by things that resemble persons.

When one asks who is writing or manifesting through the table, invariably that thing says, I am doing it. And who are you?

And then it says, Aunt Mary or Uncle So-and-So-somebody who has died. Now, we cannot assume that it is always just ghosts.

There are stupid people and perhaps there are stupid ghosts and whether they get -more intelligent I don’t know.

But at all events there is one important case published in the reports of the Psychical Research Society, where a man took immense trouble to find out who the thing was that talked, and it got quite embarrassed in the end and finally confessed, "I am you, you should not ask any more, I am yourself."

And that is very probable.

It is an unconscious delegate that says things occasionally which the conscious would not say, sometimes quite commonplace, and sometimes in symbolic form, like typical dreams.

These are the persons who produce dreams.

Also we are dreaming more or less during the day, and whenever we lower the glare, the acquired intensity, of our conscious for a moment, up come those things and we hear voices.

Of course, we do not hear them exactly as voices-we are not crazy-and when one studies the hallucinations of insane people, one can see these minor telephone apparatuses at work much better.

But they make all sorts of trouble for us.

For instance, if you have to walk across a floor in a big assembly, you naturally get self-conscious and you hear voices: "There he goes-he is terribly self-conscious and is probably going to fall
over the feet of somebody. People think he is ridiculous!"

That is what you feel, though you will not get it in definite words.

An insane person would hear a stentorian voice shouting: "There goes that fool and sure enough he will show that he is an ass!"

And you will get the same, practically, when you analyse the feelings you have in such a moment.

Or at a funeral, when you are expressing your feelings in an appropriate manner, the voices may say you are not so sorry, you are rather glad the old man died, and that gets so much under your skin that you may find yourself congratulating the mourners.

Perhaps you are walking in a funeral procession, knowing that you should have a sad face, yet you can't help smiling, all sorts of jokes occur to you that you would like to whisper to your neighbour, and you will do so if you have a chance.

The parson says the old man is now sitting at the right hand of the Lord but you know that is all bunk-he is burning in Hell.

All such phenomena are due to those employees who are perfectly aware of the real situation.

There are a host of them-we don't know how many-probably a perfectly unlimited number that represent our thoughts and feelings.

They amount to reflexes, and if one splits off any part of a psychical function and gives it a chance to live by itself, it will take on the character of a person.

It will be a little personality, but a restricted personality, with only a very partial realization of its own existence; the smaller the personality, the less the realization.

One gets very little from such things.

If one asks the ghosts that are manifesting in the table what their condition is, they cannot tell very much, mostly platitudes, they seem to be very unaware of their surroundings.

Perhaps some of you have read Sir Oliver Lodge's book about his son who died, Raymond.

He asked him all sorts of questions and the replies were peculiarly meagre.

The boy was very intelligent and one would expect of him much better answers.

The father asked him, "Do you live in houses?" and he answered vaguely, "Yes, we have houses," as if he didn't realize that they lived in them.

He answered as if he were in a dream.

It is the psychology of a very fragmentary person, and that may come from the fact that it is only a psychical phenomenon; or if it is a ghost-which I don't know, as proofs are impossible-then ghosts must live in very fragmentary forms.

One sees the same thing in lunatics.

I remember an old woman who had formerly been a tailoress, and when one said good morning and asked how she was, she would reply, "Oh, I have just had a telephone."

"But I see no telephone."

To which she would explain that it had been fixed through the wall, she didn't know how, but nearly every day God sent her special messages.

She might say she was empress of the whole world, or that she possessed an island that consisted of pure silver-nonsensical things.

They have no realization of their surroundings.

These minor figures in our patient's dream are like that.

They are unconscious creative forces and they are perfectly normal, because in dreams we are dissociated anyhow.

But if one sees such figures in one's ordinary conscious life there is trouble, for that is an indubitable symptom that one is dissociated.

People in that condition walk out of their houses as if it were already printed in their biography.

It is as if a voice were repeating what they were doing, with either appreciation or criticism.

For instance, a voice tells them that what they have just said was wonderful, and then they have a peculiar backwash of feeling in their faces.

And then naturally that oilier voice comes up, for these voices are always balanced.

In cases of insanity one finds that there are always favourable and unfavourable voices-employees who are working for your interests and against your interests, pairs of opposites.

The next thing in the dream is that he is making a room ready for that new branch.

He takes all sorts of bottles and boxes out of drawers and puts them together in order to carry them into another room; his association was that they remind him of his own little drug-store at home.

I have already spoken of his hygienic interests.

Although this seems a ridiculous detail and one would assume that these bottles and boxes were terribly uninteresting and meant nothing, yet it is typical for this man's particular psychology.

Now, what do you see in that symbol which is so typical?

Be nai've about it, please, then you get at the truth. Try to picture the man handling his boxes and bottles.

Dr. Deady: His life depends on them and he is going to sacrifice them.

Dr. Jung: Oh no, why should he get rid of them?

Miss Hannah: He just loves keeping things in boxes.

Mrs. Deady: It is compartment psychology.

Dr. Jung: Exactly. He has everything neatly in bottles and boxes and drawers.

People with such a psychology always have these little drug-stores, and there is always a fuss about them.

Like people with tender reminiscences who cherish certain divine remains pressed flowers, or the teeth of the grandmother, or all sorts of little books and bric-a-brac tucked away in drawers and chests because it expresses their compartment psychology.

This man is like that, each content divided from the other and each neatly labelled; one uses at this moment such a drug and at another moment such a pill.

Now, that is a well-ordered mind of a sort, it means a regulation of the whole feeling or Eros system.

If he should liberate all the contents, it would be an indiscriminate flood, and that is exactly why he bottles them up.

The flood would be too interesting, that is the trouble.

Now, emptying these drawers and sorting the contents suggests that he is cleaning out and stowing away things in order to have a whole room ready for the new business.

That is a decidedly important step forward.

He is now proceeding in a very businesslike way.

But naturally, when going into such an enterprise, he will hear voices, and here is the employee saying: But what about the rest of your business?

You see, doubt comes up in him quite inevitably, because the new business seems to be a very interesting enterprise which he has been avoiding for quite a while.

You remember how, whenever he touched it, he at once fell away from it again, but here it seems to become a very real and serious thing.

The fatal question is asked. In such a moment it is quite inevitable that some reaction should take place, so here comes the employee who asks the question about the main business.

What is his main business?

Dr. Deady: His intellectualism, his whole attitude, a regulated system of life, as opposed to the irrational thing he is going to take on.

Dr. Jung: Yes, it would be the totality of his psychological situation, his complete life, and there would lie his natural fear.

If he begins a new business, it might interfere with his former business or with the functioning of his total life.

So the fear that there might be some disturbance is not unreasonable, and he hastens to explain to his employee that it will not affect the main business, it is only a branch.

He uses that term, just a branch business; it does not affect the whole.

Here he is doing something in the dream which you can discern in everyday life when such an objection occurs to you.

You even talk to yourself, you say: now don't get excited.

People talk to themselves as if they were talking to an excited horse, or somebody else has to do it for them.

It is a sort of fragmentary consciousness.

Now, that is the whole dream, and before going on to the next one we should realize the exact situation.

The mouse has escaped, which means that something is going to happen, and his church resistance has been broken down.

He went through a very complicated unconscious raisonnement about his religious philosophy, and he came to the conclusion that his psychological enterprise is the really vital thing for him.

It is the enterprise upon which he is going to embark for good, and that is the third living child, you remember.

That child has to become a reality somehow, and now in this dream he is ready to create it in reality in a very businesslike way.

Therefore his unconscious chooses the methods of his own business life in order to emphasize the absolute reality of his enterprise.

So we are now in a situation with the dreamer where we would expect a continuation – the beginning-of-that-business.

The branch is not yet fully organized; this dream contains only the preparations.

The following dream came five days later.

Dream [28]

He was called by the voice of a child to go to a swimming-pool.

The child said that there was a big animal in the water.

He goes with the child but instead of a swimming-pool, he comes to a large bed.

The child pulls away the bed-cover, and there is an enormous tortoise.

He finds in his hand an iron tool, a chisel with a wooden handle, which he takes by the iron part.

He beats the head of the tortoise with the wooden handle-not with the iron part, mind you-whereupon the animal opens its mouth and spits out a living

Associations: The dreamer says that man is not in his habitual element when he is in a swimming-pool-in the water, that is. He thinks that swimming has something to do with living in the unconscious,
it is something like dreaming. He wonders that the swimming pool is not a bathing-place but a bed, really the place where one dreams.

The tortoise, he thinks, is like a crocodile, a relic of prehistoric animals, and he says that it looks as if he were not intending to kill it (as he had no feeling about it) but apparently only wanted to
overcome it, because he was beating its head not with the iron part of the chisel but with the wooden handle. He says, concerning the child that came out of the tortoise, that it looked like an embryo
in the womb, that is, it came out with the arms and legs all drawn up in the embryonic position. He says that this is obviously a birth, but he doesn't know what to think about it.

This dream is not simple.

I think we will start with the first sentence.

He hears the voice of a child calling him to the unconscious, the swimming-pool. What would that mean? You see, it is not his own child, he doesn't know it.

Mr. Schmitz: His honest attempt.

Dr. Jung: Yes, one thinks naturally of that third child, the honest attempt, his new business which is also a sort of child.

And the new attempt, the new life, is calling him to a certain place.

We had that child symbolism in the second dream before this one, and the question left over from the last dream was how the new enterprise was to continue, so it is obvious that this is the new attempt.

Then his associations show that he has found out the analogy, the immediate relationship, between the bed and the swimming-pool. It is a movement in the unconscious.

Water generally means the unconscious, and one's movement in the water is not the habitual movement, like walking in the air, but a new way of locomotion, as the conscious life is naturally different from our psychic life in the unconscious.

Dreams have a different kind of movement, and in his associations the dreamer insists upon comparing the bed and the swimming-pool-what is swimming in the pool is dreaming in the bed. I think we can hardly add anything to his associations.

That is perfectly plain.

Now, something is hidden in that bed-in the unconscious which he discovers in pursuing his new attempt.

Naturally, the new attempt would have no reason if one were not going to discover something new-have an adventure.

Such an enterprise always means a wish for new discoveries, and the first thing he encounters is a tortoise.

We don't know why he should find such a prehistoric animal on his way to the new enterprise, that is perfectly irrational, we simply have to accept the fact that it is so.

Now he links up the tortoise with the crocodile.

Do you remember about the crocodile in a former dream?

Mrs. Sigg: The crocodile was a holy animal in Upper Egypt.

Dr. Deady: The saurian brings libido from some very great irrational depths.

Dr. Jung: You remember I said that when a crocodile or any saurian turns up, one may expect something quite unusual to happen.

This is again such a case.

As I explained at that time, the crocodile, as well as the tortoise and any other cold-blooded animal, represents extremely archaic psychology of the cold-blooded thing in us.

Schopenhauer said: "the fat of our brother is good enough to smear our boots. "

That is the thing we never can understand that somewhere we are terribly cold-blooded.

There are people who, under certain circumstances, would be capable of things which they simply could not admit.

It is frightening, we are shocked out of our wits and cannot accept it. I gave you examples of the natural mind of woman; there you see the cold-blooded animal.

And naturally the same thing is in the cold-blooded man; they will confess it to each other, but never to a woman, because it is too shocking.

It is like an awful danger very far away.

It used to be in the Balkans, but now it is much farther away-in the moon.

It would be a moral catastrophe, but since we are so far away we can laugh about it.

But when it touches us, we don't laugh, it drives people almost crazy.

Once we were quite certainly cold-blooded animals, and we have a trace of it in our anatomy, in the structure of the nervous system.

The saurian is still functioning in us, and one only needs to take away enough brain to bring it to the daylight.

Let a man be wounded very badly in the brain, or have a disease that destroys it, and he becomes a vegetative and utterly cold-blooded thing, exactly like a lizard or a crocodile or a tortoise.

I told you that Hagenbeck, the famous connoisseur of animals, said that you can establish a psychic rapport with practically all animals until one comes to snakes, alligators, and such creatures, and there it comes to an end.

He told about a man who brought up a python, a perfectly harmless and inoffensive animal, apparently, that he used to feed by hand when it was quite big, and everybody assumed that it had some knowledge of him and knew that he was its nurse; but once, suddenly, that animal wound itself like lightning round the body of the man and almost killed him.

Another man had to cut it to pieces with a hatchet in order to save the man's life.

That is a typical example of the untrustworthiness of these creatures.

Warm-blooded animals have an idea of man; they are either friendly, or they avoid him and his habitations because they dislike or are afraid of him.

But snakes are absolutely heedless.

So we must assume that cold-blooded animals have an entirely different kind of psychology-one would say none, but that is a little arbitrary.

These cold-blooded relics are in a way uncanny powers, because they symbolize the fundamental factors of our instinctive life, dating from paleozoic times.

If constellated by circumstances, the saurian appears.

For instance, a terrible fear or an organic threat of disease is often expressed in dreams by a snake.

Therefore people who understand nothing of dream interpretation will yet tell you that whenever they dream of snakes, they know they are going to be ill.

During the war, when I was in charge of the British interned soldiers, I became acquainted with the wife of one of the officers, a peculiarly clairvoyant person, and she told me that whenever she
dreamt of snakes, it meant disease.

While I was there, she dreamt of an enormous serpent which killed many people, and she said: You will see that means some catastrophe.

A few days later, the second of those big epidemics of the so-called Spanish flu broke out and killed any number of people, and she herself almost died.

The snake comes up in such cases because there is an organic threat which calls forth all one's instinctive reactions.

So whenever life means business, when things are getting serious, you are likely to find a saurian on the way.

Or when vital contents are to appear from the unconscious, vital thoughts or impulses, you will dream of such animals.

It may be the hindrance that comes up, and it will block your way though you think it is perfectly simple.

Up comes an invisible hindrance, and you don't know what it really is because you can't see it, or symbolize it even, and yet it can hold you.

There is something hidden.

Perhaps your libido drops, it appears usually in that well-known form; one loses interest suddenly, and the dream expresses it as a dragon or a monster that appears on your way and simply blocks the path for you.

Then in other cases, such a monster is a help: the tremendous force of organized instinct comes up and pushes you over an obstacle which you would not believe possible to climb over by will-power or conscious decision.

There the animal proves to be helpful.

Now we do not know how vital the coffee business will be for our patient, whether it really is important or dangerous to him, but this dream tells him: Look out! Here is the saurian-this is serious!

At all events, the decision he obviously has made means that it will be a situation touching his instincts, the very foundations of his being.

So the appearance of a tortoise is rather a startling discovery in this case. And it seems to have a very important function here, because it brings forth a child, which clearly demonstrates the fact that it is really a doctor tortoise, not an ordinary one, a thing that is a secret human being.

The only association the dreamer gives is that he links it up with the crocodile. Now what about the tortoise?

Mr. Schmitz: There is important mythical symbolism connected with the tortoise.

There is even a myth, I don't know where, that the tortoise is the mother of the whole world, that everything living is born from the tortoise.

Dr. Jung: You find it in Hindu myths chiefly.

The world is carried on the back of an elephant that is standing on a tortoise.

A tortoise is a most fundamental being-the basic instinct that carries our whole psychological world.

For the world is our psychology, our point of view.

And as our point of view is carried by our instincts, so the world is carried by the tortoise.

Now, what about the symbolic aspect of this animal?

Mrs. Deady: It is also very fertile.

Dr. Jung: That is true, but all lower animals are very fertile.

Miss Wolff' The tortoise has been a mother symbol.

Dr. Jung: Yes, the tortoise in mythology has that female character maternal, underground. But these sex analogies are everywhere, and the tortoise has something very specific about it.

Mrs. Crowley: Its longevity.

Dr. Jung: It has a tremendously long life.

Miss Sergeant: It moves slowly.

Dr. Jung: It is not very temperamental!

Prof Hooke: It only becomes vocal at the moment of coition.

Dr. Jung: That is also a particularity, but it is not so accessible to human experience. There is another very striking feature.

Dr. Howells: The amphibious side of the animal.

Dr. Jung: The amphibious side is exceedingly important as referring to the unconscious side; that has a symbolic aspect. But there is something else.

Dr. Baynes: There is its crustacean character.

Dr. Jung: Yes, it can withdraw into its own house.

But the tortoise is a very impersonal symbol.

The obvious features are that this animal has an armoured house into which it can withdraw and where it cannot be attacked.

Then it is amphibious, it is apathetic, it lives a very long time, and it is highly mythological and mysterious.

Remember that the I Ching was brought to land on the shells of one hundred tortoises.

These are all the qualities of a particular psychological factor in man-age-old, very wise, and manifesting in the conscious as well as the unconscious.

This makes the tortoise very meaningful. What would it portray if you translated it into a sort of conscious function?

Answer: Introversion.

Dr. Jung: Yes, but only in an extraverted type.

Dr. Baynes: Sensation?

Dr. Jung: Only in an intuitive type.

Mrs. Fierz: Feeling?

Dr. Jung: Only in an intellectual type.

If that thing should be fully developed, fully integrated into man, what would happen then?

You see, if you translate the tortoise symbolism into the most differentiated thing man possibly can attain to, it always contains the thing that is in the beginning and also in the end.

Dr. Baynes: It is an irrational function.

Dr. Jung: Only in a rational type.

Dr. Schlegel: It has the ability to introvert and extravert, go in and out.

Dr. Jung: Yes, but it is more than that. It is the transcendent function. That is what the tortoise symbolizes, and therefore it is so important.

Mrs. Baynes: l don't see that.

Dr. Jung: The characteristics of the tortoise are the characteristics of the transcendent function, the one that unites the pairs of opposites.

Mrs. Baynes: l thought the transcendent function was created each time the pairs of opposites came together.

Dr. Jung: The coming together each time is the transcendent function. The term transcendent function is used in higher mathematics, where it is the function of rational and irrational numbers.

I did not take that term from higher mathematics, I learned only later that the same term was used there, meaning the same thing, namely, the function of rational and irrational data in the functioning
together of conscious and unconscious, of the differentiated function with the inferior function.

It is the reconciliation of the pairs of opposites. From this reconciliation a new thing is always created, a new thing is realized.

That is the transcendent function, and that is the tortoise.

And the new thing is always strange to the old thing.

A plant, for instance may have fruit which is -not at all the same, like the spores of the water algae.

The mother is a plant, but the child is a little animal with a little head and a little tail, swimming about, and then it settles down and becomes a plant again.

So the result of the transcendent function is as strange to us as the turtle is.

Dr. Schlegel: ls it only the tortoise, or every cold-blooded animal?

Dr. Jung: Not so much as the tortoise, on account of its great age and its amphibious quality.

The snake has a somewhat different meaning, it can renew itself by shedding its skin, which gives it the quality of eternity.

But the snake comes nearer to the tortoise than the crocodile, in spite of the fact that there are enormously old

According to the biologist John Bonner, certain algae (the "parent" plant may be male, female, or asexual) produce asexual zoospores (single-celled, with two flagella or "tails"), which can swim to a new location, settle, and produce a new, fixed plant. (Personal communication.)

crocodiles. There was one on the west bank of Lake Victoria which the Negroes fed because they said that crocodile protected the whole coast, it chased away all the others.

It was tremendously big and fat-they fed it with fish, and it never ate human beings.

It was the friend of man, a doctor animal.

Usually the crocodile symbolizes the voracious quality of the unconscious, the danger from below which suddenly comes up and pulls people down.

That is also a function of the unconscious, a very dangerous one.

Now we come to this very peculiar action of the dreamer, that he beats the tortoise on the head with the wooden handle of the chisel.

He says that he obviously wants to overcome the animal, but has not the intention of killing it or he would have used the iron part. Now what about the chisel?

An instrument is an important motif.

Instruments often turn up in dreams with the same meaning that they have in mythology.

Dr. Deady: I think he said that it was a tool for opening boxes.

Dr. Jung:· Yes, as if there had suddenly been an allusion to a locked box and it was necessary to pry open the lid, but that was not meant.

Dr. Deady: Striking the head, then, would be to bring about consciousness.

Dr. Jung: To beat somebody on the head?-Unconsciousness, rather!

Although we have a nice story in this country of thieves who broke into a house and tried to smash a man's head with a hammer.

But the man said, "Come in!"-as if somebody had aroused a slight interest in him by knocking at the door.

In this case it is probably something of the sort.

The tortoise is not killed, it merely got dizzy and delivered that child. But why such an instrument?

Mrs. Deady: It would help him to open all his drawers and boxes, his compartments.

Dr. Jung: That he must have it to open the boxes is quite possible, but what does the instrument mean?

Mrs. Crowley: In mythology it is a phallic symbol, so it might mean penetration.

Dr. Jung: Yes, and in the I Ching penetrating means understanding a thing; therefore we speak of a penetrating mind.

And naturally when one speaks of a thing that is able to penetrate, one thinks of an oblong and pointed object.

So there is the obvious phallic analogy, but it also symbolizes and expresses the penetrating will of man. In psychology, the action of the mind is symbolized by penetration.

And we have figures of speech in other languages, in French and in German, where the action of the mind is symbolized by the idea of penetration-a ray of light like a spear, for instance.

Later on, this man had a dream where he came to an illumined wall, and he knew that behind it was truth, and he holds a spear trying to pierce that wall.

There is the act of penetration. In this case he uses a penetrating instrument but not for penetration.

He knocks the animal on the head just to beat it down without smashing its skull. What does that mean?

Mrs. Nordfeldt: He is overcoming it.

Dr. Jung: Yes, and where do you see that in folklore?

Mrs. Baynes: In the similarity of cutting the dragon open.

Dr. Jung: Of course.

It is the fight with the dragon who holds the treasure inside, and when the hero has succeeded in beating the dragon down, out will come the father or mother, or he will get at the hidden treasure.

In this case, the dragon or tortoise delivers a child.

That is what the dream means exactly-the overcoming of the unconscious.

He has to make it conscious, he has to wrench it loose from the original unconsciousness, to detach that bit of consciousness or that content from the unconscious and make it his own.

Now what has he to make conscious by beating back the instinct that keeps everything in the unconscious?

Mrs. Nordfeldt: The honest attempt.

Dr. Jung: Yes, the child. And what child?

Question: The inferior function?

Dr. Jung: Sure enough, it has to do with the inferior function, with everything that is inferior in him, that is still to come, still to develop.

But that is not specific enough.

Could it not be that it is the same child again?

You see, in the dream before we had a new enterprise, but are we sure that he was quite conscious of what that new business meant?

If he were entirely conscious of the new attempt, of what it would mean and what its implications were, he would not have such a dream.

He does not know it in the conscious, it is too obscure, and therefore he explains to his employee that the new enterprise is just a side business, and of course the main

business will not be interfered with.

Then this next dream speaks of the birth of a child, the birth of the honest attempt, which he has to detach from the unconscious as if he were a new St. George who has to kill the dragon first in order to go on.

He must first overcome his unconsciousness in order to continue with his purpose.

That seems strange to you but not to an analyst.

One shows a thing to a patient and he says, "Yes, I see that perfectly, is it not wonderful?"

Three or four weeks later it is as if he had not understood at all, and there must be a new recognition of the same thing.

You see, a real recognition, a full realization, of these unconscious contents never happens all at once.

It always comes in waves, wave after wave, with a pause in between before a new and more intense realization of what that thing is.

There are cases where a dream in the beginning of analysis contains the whole analytical procedure.

If one realized it one would possess everything that one needed to get at it if one could.

At first, you get only a very vague glimpse, it is as if you had never seen it.

Then it comes again and you think, that is it, and then it fades away.

And then comes a third wave and you think, is it not marvellous ?-a perfect revelation.

Then that ebbs away, and a fourth and fifth wave come, and many waves must come until we realize that what we call progress is really always one and the same thing, which we are simply unable to realize and which only dawns upon us very slowly.

It is as if the sun, in order to become visible to us, must come up and go down again and again until we realize that it is the sun and it is day.

We shall have other dreams where that problem will come up again.

This man's first attempt at realization was not enough, he is still up against the old dragon, against the old unconsciousness.

Therefore he must first overcome the dragon in order to detach the child from the maternal abyss in which it was concealed.

Mrs. Baynes: But didn't we say that the child that took him to the bed and turned down the cover was the new attempt?

Dr. Jung: Of course it is.

Mrs. Baynes: Is this new child the same?

Dr. Jung: One and the same! The first attempt was the effort to realize, but that was not enough.

He is not fully conscious, which is demonstrated by the fact that he has such a dream.

I can give you a practical example: I was once treating a man who was a doctor and by no means a fool.

He was an alienist too--which of course does not prove that he was not a fool.

He had a mother complex; he lived in his mother's house and she took care of him.

He was a little husband.

From the very beginning he had dream after dream about his mother complex, and each one told him that it simply would not do, that he could not live like that.

After about six weeks-you can see that I am a poor analyst-I realized that there must be a special tie between the man and his mother, and I discovered that he was writing daily letters to her in which he explained his whole analytical procedure, every detail.

So he remained in the closest connection with her all the time.

And this was after six weeks of talking about that mother complex every day.

It was six months before he came with a long face and said: "But, Doctor, do you really think I should detach from my mother?

Is it possible that you think I should not live in the same house with her?"

I said: "Exactly!

That is what I expect of you, how often have I told you that?"

And he said: "But I thought you did not mean it.

You cannot possibly think that I should live in a flat of my own! What about my mother?"

"Well," I said, "there you are!

That is your problem. I mean just what I say, and it is extraordinary that it takes so long to realize what I told you in the first hour."

It is as if somebody said: "Hurry up, the house is on fire!" and one replied: "Do you really think that houses in Zurich can catch fire?"

Perfectly unable to hear what is said. And that is very general.

It is amazing what it takes to make people hear and see.

The simplest thing will not get under their skins and one can repeat it a dozen times or twenty times.

The moment that that man realized that he had really to detach from his mother he had an awful dream.

He dreamt that he was climbing a steep hill which was very slippery.

He just managed to reach the top when, looking down, he saw his mother. He shouted: "For heaven's sake, don't try to come up!"

But his mother started, and then slipped and broke her leg.

Next day, in reality, a telegram came: "Your mother has broken her leg."

That explained his stupidity, why he was so deaf. His unconscious knew that it might kill his mother.

Those old bonds, cases of participation mystique, are exceedingly dangerous.

One must not get impatient. Just say it again. So this difficulty in realization explains certain dreams.

You see how many attempts our dreamer has already made to approach the problem, and that is merely the difficulty of realization.

He cannot make up his mind to see the thing exactly as it is, and to give it the right value.

This seems to be a tremendous difficulty, and I never hastened him, never bullied him, because I know quite well that it cannot be forced.

It is vital, there is a saurian in it and one must not push the thing. It needs to mature slowly.

If you push it you might injure vital instincts. I have never made any conditions-if you do not do this, and all that stuff.

That won't work at all. One has to be exceedingly patient in such a case.

But we shall encounter quite a number of dreams where the wave comes on again and again and where he has a new chance to take it.

One often finds that motif, the hidden treasure, or the blossoming of the treasure or the flower in mythology and folklore.

It is supposed to blossom after a certain period, say nine years, nine months, nine days.

On the ninth night, the treasure comes up to the surface and whoever happens to be on the spot on the ninth can take it, but the next night it goes down to the depths, and then it takes nine years and nine months and nine days before it blossoms again.

That is the demonstration in folklore of the difficulty of psychological realization.

Miss Howells: How long is it since he began till the time of this dream?

Dr. Jung: He began in May and this dream is in the middle of October. ~Carl Jung, Dream Analysis Seminar, Pages 637-653

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Carl Jung's Dream Analysis Seminar Lecture III 21 May 1930



LECTURE III 21 May 1930

We will continue our discussion of the dream. Do you remember where we left off, Dr. Draper?

Dr. Draper: We were talking about the participation mystique, that cross-transference.

Dr. Jung: That was not quite it. You asked something very awkward why those two children were dead.

Dr. Deady: Miss Wolff asked a question concerning the woman having come into the Trinity.

Miss Wolff' It was not a question, just a remark.

Dr. Jung: Just a remark!

That is exactly the point, we must establish the connection, otherwise we talk in the air.

You see, in the dream before, the whole Trinity came down to earth, and in the next dream came the birth of triplets, obviously referring to the Trinity, which was reborn in a very peculiar way.

We made the hypothesis that the three had to do with functions, which would mean that of the three functions of the Trinity, two are dead and
only one is alive.

And then came your question, why should two of them be dead if they are supposed to be living elements in the Trinity.

Now I call that a very awkward question. Is there an answer?

The associations are very important, that the children represent the three stages in the dreamer's mental development, two of those stages still-born.

Moreover, the importance of that is emphasized by the fact that the midwife, whom he associates with me, is doing away with those dead children.

So Dr. Draper's question is really very awkward, for how can a thing that is reborn be dead, and what is the use of being reborn when it is a miscarriage?

Mrs. Crowley: There was the point that his wife had borne the triplets.

Dr. Jung: But there was no question about the paternity; we must assume that the dreamer has something to do with his own children.

We have not heard of a secret lover.

Miss Sergeant: If they represented his theosophy and other occult interests, why should they not die when analysis is born?

Dr. Jung: Yes, that is what the dreamer clutches at, and there evidently would be the loophole to escape Dr. Draper's question.

But in our interpretation we assumed that the Trinity meant the three functions in the unconscious.

That was hypothesis, it is not guaranteed by the dream; the dream and its associative material does not speak of functions.

We were discussing the Trinity in a very general way and not entirely in connection with the dream, where we had only to do with the three stages which the dreamer mentioned.

But we left that point of view and spoke of the peculiar fact that we find these trinities of gods all over the earth, from which we may assume that that symbol must be based upon a universal psychological condition.

And concerning such a psychological condition, we know that there was a time in the dawn of all history, in the beginning of civilization, when man first detached one function from the collective unconscious; that is, he succeeded in making a part of the unconscious psyche serviceable for his own
purpose.

The moment when man could say he had a purpose or the will to do so-and-so marked the birth of that detachment.

Naturally, when one studies the psychology of the functions, one finds that it is not fully detached, that, in a differentiated type, there is a part, a root of the most differentiated function which is embedded entangled in the collective unconscious.

That is the most difficult thing for people to realize in themselves the thing they will admit last.

Take a thinking type, for instance, who is completely identical with his conscious function.

If you tell him that a certain part of his thinking is absolutely primitive, he jumps at your throat.

He will not admit it, he must cling to the idea that somewhere he is divine and free.

You can tell him that his feeling life is far below the mark, that his sensation is not good, or that his intuition is rotten, and he will admit all that.

But never say that his thinking is impure.

Yet even his thinking is at some point impure.

One sees the same thing in a differentiated feeling type.

He is apparently quite able to feel hypothetically, as a thinker can think hypothetically.

Most people can only think concretely.

I remember saying to such a person: Let us assume that Sydney is in Canada and not in Australia.

Whereupon he immediately replied: That cannot be, Sydney is in Australia.

Now, that is not a thinking type, for a thinking type is able to think that Sydney is in the moon; he can think anything.

Just as a feeling type is free in his own function: he can assume that we are all perfectly happy, he can conjure up happiness for everybody for a while, the most wonderful atmosphere which everybody thinks is marvellous, but then comes the catastrophe.

After a while the whole thing collapses.

For even such a highly developed feeling type, who seems free from conditions within, has certain feelings somewhere in the background which are absolute slaves, the effects of dark causes, and he seems to be free of them only because he wants to believe in his divinity, his freedom.

And it is true that in so far as you have succeeded in detaching a function you are free, free from conditions, beyond causes.

But as a whole, you are never quite free.

What I said, then, about the Trinity being the three functions in the unconscious is a universal consideration not mentioned in the dream.

And in such cases, where people ask awkward questions, one had better return to the actual text of the dream, which is that the Trinity has descended, three children are born, and the dreamer associates with them the three stages of his mental or spiritual development.

For further explanation of the dead children, we have to refer to his associations.

So in the very first place, even if we connect it up with the Trinity in the previous dream, before discussing the Trinity as three functions we must look at it in a different way, namely, as three successive stages.

And we find that in reality the historical Trinity is also in three stages: the Father, the Creator; then the Son; and then the Holy Ghost.

The Paraclete, the Comforter, is left by the Son. So we see that even in the dogma the Trinity is a succession, yet it is in eternity.

What is to us separated is together in eternity because there is no time.

In the light of the dreamer's associations, then, the Trinity is to be understood in this case as three existing not at once but in succession.

His three stages are representations, so to speak, of his three successive conditions spiritualism, the Father; theosophy, the Son; and psychology, the
Holy Ghost.

Now, the fact that two are dead would refer to the first ones.

The Father is dead, the Son is dead, and the Holy Ghost is alive.

Spiritualism is dead, theosophy is dead, and psychology is alive.

That would be the parallel, and it would be subjectively true in his case.

You have heard enough about his attitude to the Church to know that his convictions in that respect are very definite; he can no longer believe in the traditional Church, Christianity is dead for him.

Also he is probably aware through his theosophical studies of the belief, widespread in our days, that there are three stages of spiritual development, namely, the Old Testament, the Father; the New Testament, the Son; and the present time, the Holy Ghost, which is the new thing to come.

That idea probably comes from the East, it is reminiscent of the successive incarnations of the Buddha.

Mrs. Fierz: The Cistercian monks of the twelfth or thirteenth century were the first to speak of it.

Mr. Schmitz: I think it was in the eleventh or twelfth century. If I am not mistaken it was a current assumption in the time of Frederick the Second.

Dr. Jung: I think you may be right, and it is quite remarkable that it came up so early.

Question: What was the idea?

Dr. Jung: The idea was of the three successive conditions in the evolution of truth: the Old Testament was the Kingdom of the Father; the New Testament was the Kingdom of the Son and so of Christianity in general; and the third would be the Empire or Kingdom of the Holy Ghost, that is the thing to come.

This idea of successive revelations, or periodical manifestations, has an Eastern character, and it is of course a fact that there were Eastern influences in the early Church.

In the second century before Christ there were already Buddhist monasteries in Persia; it is quite certain that there were Persian influences in early Christianity and probably Buddhist as well.

At all events, the Catholic Church was influenced by the East. The rosary is an Eastern yantra, for instance.

Thus it is possible that the idea of the successive manifestations of the Bodhisattvas penetrated early Christianity.

Mr. Schmitz: The Russian Church has accepted the idea of the three elements.

Dr. Jung: Yes, it is a general idea. In theosophical circles these three stages have also been widely discussed.

And now, people think that the coming of the new age-Aquarius-will be the third condition, the new revelation of the Trinity.

1 don't know in how far my dreamer has been influenced by such ideas, but I found that he knew about the three successive stages in human development, which coincide with, or are symbolized by, the successive stages of the Trinity.

You see, this idea would rather bear out what we were discussing in the last seminar, namely, the successive incarnations, one could almost say, of the three different functions, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and if that should be completed we would have the complete individual.

At all events, when the Trinity comes down to earth we may expect a tremendous change, transformations not only in our own psychology but also in our psychological concept of the divine.

It will make a great psychological difference because we shall no longer possess the necessary unconscious conditions for our conception of the divine factor.

The necessary material was the three unconscious functions that formed a body of considerable energy, which was the basis for a conception
of an all-powerful Trinity.

Now, if that factor gets dissolved by conscious realization, or the detachment of these functions, it would follow that the psychological material already in our unconscious would be the sole structure for a new concept of the divine.

So it would be an entirely different way.

To finish this argument, have you an idea what the psychological material in the unconscious would be?

If the three functions of the Trinity were assimilated, what would remain?

That would again throw an interesting light on the dream.

You see, as long as man has but one function, he is just aware that he can do something, but he is always up against an overwhelming psychological condition, the three in the unconscious, the majority, on top of him.

Then he acquires a second function and becomes more complete.

He gains more balance and acquires something like a philosophical consciousness.

He can be aware of himself as such a psychological being.

He can say: I want to do this or that, and he can also say: I see how foolish that is.

While with-only one function that is impossible, there is no reflection; it is only with the acquisition of the two functions that he has acquired a mirror.

The left hand can then judge the right hand, and he has thereby gained a sort of divinity, a superior point of view.

The third function makes a second mirror.

He can say: I see this fellow here who is watching that chap down there, and I see how he thinks and that he makes a wrong conclusion.

With a fourth function there would be still more consciousness.

Obviously, it is a tremendous thing in the growth of consciousness that one can get behind oneself, that one can as a spectator again and again mirror oneself.

Probably one can actually do it only to a limited extent, there are presumably certain restrictions to our consciousness, but one can see the possibility of infinite mirroring~ and of infinite judgment.

In that case, one would arrive naturally at a being who was so fabulously superior to conditions that it would be an almost limitless freedom, like the complete freedom of God that has not to obey conditions because it is the only condition that is.

Therefore the more functions one acquires, the more one deprives the divinity, or the magical factor, the mana factor, of its efficiency.

It is as if one were undermining it, or hollowing it out, because one takes away from it and adds to oneself with every new point of view.

So one lifts oneself up above conditions.

That is the path of redemption in the East, the attainment of successive conditions of consciousness which gradually liberate man from the pairs of opposites, from the qualities, from concupiscentia, from the wheel of death and rebirth, as they express it.

Now, one would conclude that, through this detachment of the functions, we would arrive at a complete assimilation of the Trinity, in other words, a complete assimilation of the divine factor within ourselves.

But then nothing would be left apparently. Or is that a wrong conclusion?

Mrs. Fierz: The devil.

Dr. Jung: Oh no, we would assimilate the devil. We could even check God. We could say: I see this is God and he thinks so and so, but I am going to play a trick on him, I am the devil.

Or the reverse: I see the devil and I will play a trick on him.

Our question is: suppose one arrives at the complete assimilation of the Trinity, would one still be only an inferior being?

We are naturally of the devil, from the very beginning our hearts were black, we arose from the slime, and we would be perfectly convinced that we were bringing into the Trinity something terribly inferior.

But with the acquisition of the Trinity we obviously rise to a higher level, to complete freedom from conditions, and if that is the case we would assume that God would not be objective any longer because he is clearly one with us.

We would be in a way divine, which is of course the Eastern idea.

Do you think that such a thing is psychologically possible?-that the divine object could disappear from man's conscious?

Suggestion: I think there would be a sort of entropy.

Dr. Jung: Then it would be a sort of desinteressement such as one sees in the East.

That Eastern quietism is a kind of desinteressement so that people vanish practically.

But we cannot say what that condition is inside, because nobody is inside such a condition-unless he is dead.

It is like expecting a man to say how he feels when he is dead.

Mr. Schmitz: The tension of polarity would cease, and therefore it would be the same as death. At the moment when he reached his goal he would no longer be living.

Dr. Jung: Yes, one might assume that when he has reached the complete assimilation of all projections, he will have reached the stage of divinity, and then he is necessarily dead, because every thinkable form of energy has been turned in, assembled in the field of the square inch, or the house of the square foot, as Chinese Yoga puts it, and there it is held in a form of duration where nothing happens at all.

But as long as we live we are obviously incapable of withdrawing all energy from the world, of withdrawing all projections.

We keep on eating things, smelling things, moving, and all that is psychology in projection.

It is projection, it is giving out, something is constantly leaving us-as long as we live we are projecting.

We are incarnating energy, and so energy is not completely withdrawn, it is not completely within ourselves, which means that an ideal condition of complete awareness cannot be reached as long as we live.

But we may say that we can reach it approximately, so that one could imagine how it would be.

We can assume such a condition, in which one has withdrawn the maximum projection.

We can assume that the maximum energy is now within, gathered up in the so-called diamond body.

Then what about the divine object? Is that still divine?-or is it depleted? What form would it take if there were one? Or is that a perfectly unintelligible
question?

I would not ask it if there were not a doubt in my mind.

Naturally in analysis I have observed patients and have seen these things so often that I have formed certain ideas.

Now, there is still one important point in that dream which we have to clear up, namely, why his wife is bringing forth at all why, when the Trinity comes to earth, does it not go into him?

Yet the dream says it is his wife who brings forth-as if his wife were a sort of modern Mary, the Holy Ghost having come down with wings and fertilized her.

Dr. Draper: It is possible that notwithstanding his complete assimilation of his projections, he reaches the stage where there still remains in him the fact that he does go back to the mudfish. That forms a sort of matrix from which he cannot possibly escape. He still has something of the amoeba in him.

Dr. Jung: There you are on the right track.

For the fact is, if we succeed in assimilating other functions, or in bringing our projections back to ourself, we do acquire a sort of divinity and that has a peculiar effect upon our psychology, it removes us from the inferior man.

People often get quite inflated and think they are acquiring a wonderful superiority because they are identifying with the next mirror.

The more mirrors one acquires, the more divine one becomes, and the more also one becomes inflated-identical with the next mirror, that is, and again taken away from the apeman, from everything that is low and weak, perhaps even dirty, that still is wet from the original waters, covered with primeval slime.

We get away from all that, farther and farther away, the more awareness we acquire, but then a very peculiar fact happens.

What would that be?

Prof Hooke: Are assimilation and detachment the same thing?

Dr. Jung: The psychological consequence of the assimilation would be detachment, because only when one gets a superior point of view does one say, I am so-and-so. One doesn't identify with the fact that one is incapable or wrong, but with the superior point of view naturally.

We all identify with our one differentiated function I am myself, and then I find myself in my thinking. A great musician would naturally think himself a great musician.

Do you think that Wagner suspected that he was anything else?

He never thought that he was-I won't tell you what, I leave it to your imagination.

Mrs. Baynes: But I thought you were presupposing that you were taking all four functions together, and if you do that you could not forget that primordial slime.

Dr. Jung: You may not forget, but with each mirror you get a higher point of view and you naturally identify with it.

In actual fact you are getting away, you won't stay on the level of the amoeba.

Mr. Schmitz: And then comes the revenge of the inferior man?

Dr. Jung: Exactly.

The more we get away from our roots, the more we identify with mirrors, the more inefficient we become, because the mirror has no feet, it has no hands.

It is complete awareness, perhaps, yet no effect except the effect which we can give to it.

What is inside it means exceedingly little.

I can tell a person that things are so-and-so, but he simply cannot make it true, because insight counts for little unless it is given hands and feet.

The further we get away the less we are efficient.

Prof Hooke: And yet we are the more divine!

Dr. Jung: Yes, that is a terrible paradox, but you must not mix it up with philosophy.

This is psychology, where we really move in paradoxes.

The more divine, the farther from earth-speaking psychologically, and from that you may conclude that God is a most inefficient being.

But that is of course metaphysical. It may be true and it may not be true.

Mr. Schmitz: That is the reason why God incarnated himself in the Son. Empirically, he is not, he is incapable, and that is why he has created this terrible world. He must be not only in potentia but in actu.

Dr. Jung: Yes, that is why man is indispensable to God.

Without man, God could do nothing.

That is not metaphysical.

I don't believe in metaphysics, I only own to psychology, and in our psychology it is surely so-that God finds himself in a very helpless condition.

We find that idea in old legends, in that cabalistic legend, for instance, that I have told you, that God in the beginning was all alone, there was nothing except himself, and his loneliness grew and grew to such an extent that he got a terrible headache from it, and realized that there should be something that was not himself.

In the beginning everything was in the form of a vaporous coud, so he drew that together till it became more and more condensed, and suddenly a light burnt through, and that was the Son, the first ray of Light. (Cf. The Gospel of St. John.)

Dr. Baynes: It is like Prajapati.

Dr. Jung: Exactly the same idea-the extraordinary loneliness of God and his helplessness in that condition.

Well then, we make the statement that the more we increase our awareness, the more we draw back our projections and gather up our energy in ourselves, the more we remove ourselves from actual efficiency.

The idea that God was perfectly helpless and lost in his loneliness and had to create man in order to become or to be is expressed in many myths or philosophical parabola, and thus is explained how man is in a way the indispensable means of God's becoming.

That is beautifully expressed by Meister Eckhart where he says that God in his very divinity is not God, he must be born through the soul of man again and again. "Without me God cannot live."

So the condition of divine awareness is really a condition of infinite mirroring, and the more one lives in the mirroring, the more one is removed from the substance, whatever that is.

One cannot help having a too superior point of view.

Suppose one has a tremendous universal insight into things.

Once shrugs one’s shoulders and says: better that I know nothing at all, for then I could do something.

Knowing so much would keep one out of existence, one wouldn't know whether one was alive or dead, one would be simply universal.

So through that awareness one would be aware of functions, but the interesting thing is that when one is mfrroring a thing one does not possess it.

It is like an old magic idea that mirroring a thing means possessing it.

That is not true.

One gets the illusion that when one is able to mirror that fellow there, and from here to decide about him, that one possesses him.

But he is not possessed, he keeps his original substance.

He is there and one cannot take him in.

One can only take in the images of things, but the things remain and one is removed from them.

One doesn't keep the world in one when one takes away one's energy; the world remains there, one only removes oneself; and so it comes about
that through a superior awareness one is peculiarly separated from the substance.

Then something happens.

And here we come to our original argument, namely, what will happen when we assimilate the Trinity?

Obviously we get an almost universal or complete awareness, mirrors after mirrors, and we apparently acquire divinity.

Well, something in us, some remote vista, is divine, one ray of light is divine, but we have not undone our reality, this world.

We have only removed ourselves from the world through that awareness, and we apparently have lost the divine object, the divine object from the regions of light, where it was before.

All illumination came to us from above, and it was light which revealed itself to us as truth.

But when we are identified with the mirroring, the divine factor changes its form altogether. In what form would it reappear?

Mr. Schmitz: The first thing is that the collective unconscious will take its revenge.

The higher man climbs, and the more he identifies himself with those heights, the more he will get into a mess of ridiculous and childish casualties.

Dr. Jung: One knows everything with one's universal awareness, but that does not hinder matter from acting. It doesn't influence the substance in the least.

Mr. Schmitz: But is it not possible, if the sensation function, for instance, works well, if it is quite differentiated and free, that one might have a certain connection with matter in that situation of divine solitude?

Dr. Jung: It is more than possible, it is inevitable.

You perceive reality, yet the superior insight removes you, and you are in solitude.

Mr. Schmitz: The insight through the four functions?

Dr. Jung: Yes, because what the mirrors reflect is not substance, only the image.

Also, sensation is not what one usually understands having sensations of touch, light, etc.-it is simply an awareness of things as they are, what the French psychologist Janet calls "la fonction du reel," a psychological point of view, an attitude.

Mr. Schmitz: If one has this "fonction du reel," is it conceivable that one would be as remote from matter?

Dr. Jung: Oh yes, one can see things as they actually are through one's awareness, and yet be absolutely removed from them.

That is the great tragedy. The more one is aware, the more one is removed.

Mr. Schmitz: Then the conclusion would be not to be so aware!

Dr. Jung: If one can afford it. But we cannot afford not to be aware. Everything in us forces us to higher consciousness.

We have to follow up that way, but on that way we lose connection.

Mr. Schmitz: The happy end is death!

Dr. Jung: That is the Eastern idea, Nirvana.

The more one is removed-not that you are actually taken away into cosmic distances, it is the psychological situation-the more one says, what is the use of bothering.

In two years or fifty years one will be dead and then one will disappear anyhow.

Other people will come, other illusions will come, it does not matter.

That is universal awareness, and it removes one. It is a psychological condition.

One is here, seeing, shaking hands with people, saying how do you do, and yet one is ten thousand miles away, anywhere in the cosmos, but not here.

Now if that is the case-and that will be the case with more complete awareness-then compensation will take place.

Then as the Chinese say, the lead of the water region will react.

One rebels against that removal, and then God, the divine factor, the overwhelming factor, appears in things. Do you understand?

It is very interesting to look at the development of thought psychologically in the nineteenth century, after the French Revolution, after the rational era of natural science.

Then people began to believe in ghosts, in moving tables, materializations, etc.

These are most primitive ideas, yet they had at that time the value of almost divine revelations.

And, mind you, they were not altogether idiotic people, and there are many people today who believe in a valid origin for these things.

It was the time when that famous book Force and Matter by Buchner appeared, and was received with such extraordinary enthusiasm.

It designates the height of materialism, just in the fact that in it matter becomes spirit.

Look at the most modern facts in science and what is matter after all?

Thought is matter, and matter is thought; there is no difference any longer.

That is the Einstein theory.

The latest truth about matter is that it is like thought, that it even behaves like a psychical something, that it is a psychical phenomenon.

The whole concept of matter is dissolving into these abstractions.

It is changing altogether, which has much to do with an entirely different consideration, a tremendous revolution in our whole outlook.

Mr. Holdsworth: When you spoke about God being unable to get along without man, did you differentiate man from the other animals?

Dr. Jung: Oh, I would include the whole tribe of animals.

That is not an original idea.

You may have heard of Jaworski, who thinks that all the parts of the human being are derived from animals.

He says that each organ of the human body is really a sort of conglomeration of all the different animal principles.

There is a picture in one of his books which shows what part of the animal is associated with the various parts of man.

The idea is, roughly, that all animals are contained in man.

Then there is a German book by Dacque, who says that animals all come from that block which was hewn out to make man, that animals are particles split off from man.

We are not derived from the ape-man, but the apeman is derived from us-and went on making apes.

There really might be something in it.

Our idea about the descent of man is most peculiar. It might just as well be that a certain old gorilla was a by-product of man; that is perfectly feasible from a biological point of view.

Such ideas are in the air nowadays, I cannot decide!

You remember what Eckhart says: "All grain meaneth wheat, all metal meaneth gold, and all nature meaneth man."

So when I speak of man I mean creation, because in a way man is creation, for he only is aware of creation.

If nobody is aware of it, it is as if it were not.

That is Schopenhauer's idea-that the world does not exist if man is not aware of it, and therefore man should extinguish himself in order to bring suffering to an end.

It is also the Eastern point of view.

And lunatics have the same idea that the world is chiefly a projection, that it exists only when they create it.

They say: I make those people; if I don't look there is nothing there.

Such tremendous exaggeration is, of course, due to the fact that their connection with reality has been severed, a fact which also occurs in the highest condition of Yoga, where a man feels the whole world as an enormous illusion, an hallucination.

He speaks to a person as if there were nobody there, as if it were just a voice he has heard, and he feels it like that.

These are peculiarities of people who have concentrated their thought within.

I told you that anecdote of old man Schopenhauer standing in the flower bed.

When one is removed to a higher level of consciousness, reality appears as a sort of illusion.

Well now, we must return again to the original problem-what takes place in the Trinity when it comes down to earth?

The dream gives us the simple answer that it is reborn in the shape of triplets, two of them dead and one living.

That is a pretty sad rebirth, I should say, not very complete.

The only thing that remains from that whole process of transformation is a little baby, one perhaps divine but very human baby that should be taken care of.

Mr. Crowley: In a way it is the same, because it contains all the possibilities.

Dr. Jung: Well, yes, but from the point of view of Christian possibilities it is not even a very modest Saviour.

Dr. Baynes: Is it not that the depotentiation of the Trinity is bringing the action down from the abstract to the normal sphere of relationship, the human embodiment?

Dr. Jung: Yes. When we go back to the actual associations of the dreamer, which one must always do, mind you, we come to that theoretical conclusion.

To him these three children are spiritual efforts, and his most recent preoccupation, psychology, is the only remaining child of the Trinity.

So that would be the divine child. And what is the divine child?

The honest attempt of man.

The last remnant of something divine is the honest attempt of man, made through that derivation to a sort of God.

You will laugh that I bring in H. G. Wells, but in his book God the Invisible King, God is a youth, and I know that figure from innumerable dreams.

We have often spoken of it, the Puer Aeternus who represents the more or less heroic attempt of man, which becomes or, in a way,
takes the place of a deity.

A peculiar kind of deity, for what is weaker than a human attempt? What is more miserable, more helpless?

It is an exceedingly small seed in the beginning.

It has to grow, and one has to take care of it to enable it to grow, and that is, of course, not one's idea of the divine-a thing so helpless and weak.

But if it is true, as Eckhart says, that God has to be born in the soul again and again, then God is born necessarily as-well, an embryo, a little child, absolutely inefficient, that has to become.

So it shouldn't shock our religious feelings too much when we attribute the divine quality to the human attempt.

But apparently it shocks us from the standpoint of rationalism or from our intellectual point of view. Why should it have the quality of the divine?

One cannot see that, and I don't know why one should. I strongly advise you not to.

To assume that your attempt is necessarily divine would be a terrible assumption.

I say that your attempt has the divine quality because, if you study these attempts of man, you will discover that they are not so much conscious decisions, not so much his own free will, as that they are forced upon him.

He has to make the attempt, he cannot escape it. It may be the thing he is perhaps most afraid of, the thing about which he has always thought:

For heaven's sake, I hope that does not come to mel-and afterwards he says: Oh, I wanted it!

But he funked it for years.

He may even think that it is his worst foolishness, his most miserable folly, and that he is a damned fool to try.

Why expose himself to these things? It is because he has to do it, he cannot keep his fingers off it.

A superior factor in himself, Deus ex machina, the divine thing in him, that tremendous power, is forcing his hand, and he is the victim of his own attempt-though he says his attempt was just his purpose.

Not in the least!

Therefore, when you talk to people like Mr. Goethe or Mr. Napoleon, they will frankly tell you that it was not so much their own choice, that they had the feeling of fate in it, that they were following a sort of guidance.

And all people who have really done something in the world have that feeling that there is much behind the screen, some real incentive in their choice and in what they have done.

For, if told to do something important, one is terribly afraid and would give anything in the world if one had not to do it.

Now, the dream says to this man, you are without a God, you have dropped out of the Church and there is no God; the only thing divine is your honest attempt at this psychological business.

I don't mean that analytical psychology is in any way divine, but it is the only way that he can make; it is his boat, his water, his sail,
everything, and it is of miserable human make.

There is no divine revelation in it but the fact is that he cannot leave it.

There was once a time when I said to him, "You are not forced to do this kind of analysis, you can do what you please.

It is an interesting intellectual game for you, and I admit it need not be anything more.

And now, if you want to know how much the thing is worth to you, just give it up." I always say that to my patients as if it were a matter
of belief.

If you do not need clothes, give them up, go about naked, and if you feel better, so much to the good.

But he can't give up analysis.

Later on he will say that he clung to it with tremendous energy, made himself do it every day; yet in reality he could not give it up.

There is the power, there is the mana, and it is wise to see it.

That is why the dream speaks in such a way.

It is extraordinary that these dreams look so simple and yet we have to talk for hours to find out what they really mean.

It is so simple to say that the Trinity comes down and a child is born, and yet it makes a, tremendous transformation in his whole system that he inadvertently gets into a divine presence.

He is suddenly confronted with that tremendous factor, and how does it appear to him? As a little child.

Those of you who were in a former seminar will remember Meister Eckhart's beautiful story of the dream of Brother Eustachius, a monk of a Paris order, about the little naked boy whom he had to feed with bread, and no bread was good enough, and only afterwards he discovered that this little boy who had been with him was the Lord himself.

So my dreamer had not the faintest idea that his honest attempt, that little boy, was the God to come.

Mr. Schmitz: Would you say that the divine in analysis might be the method of removing resistances against this honest attempt?

Dr. Jung: Yes, one could say that. For most people's attempt is not honest, it is an illusion.

They make heroic attempts to escape the real attempt, because that is the thing of which people are most afraid. The honest attempt is the worst danger.

Mr. Schmitz: Why danger?

Dr. Jung: Oh, danger because one is afraid of it.

lt is a risk, one dies by living.

There was a French soldier who was a very fine man, I mean a real man, and his principle was that he always followed his fear; wherever he was afraid, there he would go because he felt it to be his duty.

Not foolishly, like climbing a chimney; one doesn't do that-it is too foolish.

He was an officer in some garrison in France, and he met there a man who had been in the Foreign Legion on the border between Algeria and Morocco, who told him all kinds of terrible things about it, quite gruesome details, and this officer said to himself, you are afraid!-so he went into that African army.

Later on, travelling on leave in the South of France, he visited a Trappist monastery.

He knew nothing about that order, nothing about the rules of the monks, he only knew that they did not speak, that they only lived in order to die.

Suddenly it struck him as a most fearful thing to do, it got him, and he said to himself: These fellows do it, go and be a Trappist.

So he went; and as a Trappist he again had an experience.

He heard of certain Trappist monks who had gone alone to Morocco to do missionary work among those tribes, and that some of them had been cruelly murdered.

Again he felt fear, so he became a missionary and went to Morocco, and he was murdered. That was the end of it.

There was a man who obviously had found out that, for him, following the fear was the honest attempt.

I don't know how to value such a life, I have no means of knowing if it was wonderful or beautiful.

I only tell you the story to show you how that man followed the thing he was afraid of.

Whether that was right for him is not to be judged by us.

I suppose if I had seen that man, if he had come for analysis, it is just possible that that might have turned out to be his life.

I have seen many cases where people said: Do you really think that I have to go through this or that?

I say: I don't know, we must find out.

Mr. Schmitz: In a female dreamer, would the symbol be a girl, or also a boy? Women very often dream of little girls.

Dr. Jung: That is a specific problem, and here it is a universal problem, because this man has really a philosophical mind.

I have explained before that his wife doesn't think at all; therefore one could say that her mind is in the depths of the cosmos, and he gets that from her. It is just that which is so interesting, that it is his wife who brings forth his honest attempt, the triplets. ~Carl Jung, Dream Analysis Seminar, Pages 603-620




Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Carl Jung's Dream Analysis Seminar Lecture II 14 May 1930




LECTURE II 14 May 1930

Here are questions from Mrs. Sawyer and Mrs. Crowley.

I should like to settle Mrs. Sawyer's question first because it is more general.

She says: "You mention two mandalas, one Christian and one Egyptian, in which three functions are pictured with the heads of beasts and one function with a human head. The human-headed function is the conscious superior function and the other three are unconscious. Did you also say that in Christian psychology the three superior functions are carried by the Trinity and the inferior function by the devil? n such a case, is there practically no consciousness at all-all four functions being carried by symbols?"

I said that the three unconscious functions are carried by the Trinity and the one conscious function by the devil.

I spoke of the three animals, and that these three unconscious functions play a superior role.

But that means superior in the sense of power, not in the sense of differentiation.

For the primitive man is always under a superior guidance, something is on top of him, because it demands an extraordinary consciousness, an extraordinary self control, to say, "I will."

The primitive cannot say, "I will"-he is driven; the primitive is almost completely under the spell of his moods.

There is no question of choice, things decide themselves.

And that fact is portrayed by the superior power ascribed to their gods, who are, for instance, of powerful and gigantic size and demoniacal influence, against whom man is just nothing.

That is a portrait of the psychic situation of relatively primitive man, or in other words, of the relation of his conscious to his unconscious.

His unconscious is paramount to his conscious, and he projects that fact into metaphysical space in the form of tremendous gods.

While as soon as a man increases his consciousness, the gods decrease in size and in power.

One sees that very beautifully in the development of Buddhism, where an entirely new point of view is introduced.

There we see that the gods appear even at the birth of the Buddha, as they appear when he dies, and that even the gods have to become men to be redeemed.

They still have desires and fight each other like human beings.

And so the ambition of the Buddha was to liberate his people from such beliefs and to show them the higher degrees of consciousness, to give them release from the contradictory power of the gods.

You see, as long as there are three gods against one man, it means that man is completely inferior and of the devil.

Of course, it is obvious in the Christian dogma that man is bad from the beginning and would be entirely lost, were it not for the grace of God, which might eventually save him.

But that is an awfully uncertain business, you know, and if by chance you do not become one of the honorary members of the Church, back you go to hell where you came from-no chance at all.

I have mentioned before the fact of that famous passage from the New Testament: "When two or three are gathered together in my name, I am with them."

The original form, which was found in an Egyptian papyrus, was: "When there are two together, they are not without God, but when there is one alone, I say I am with him."

The Church interfered and separated man from grace when alone. There must be several together in order to have a chance, and if you are outside the Church there is for redemption.

That consciousness of man’s utter inferiority is portrayed in the Trinity as I said of three against one-simply more powerful-and naturally our dogma supposes that this Trinity is infinitely perfect, although it is obviously not yet so good that the devil is abolished.

The devil is still moving around like a bad dog.

My father was a clergyman and I used to argue with him about that. I said that when a person has a bad dog, the police interfere.

But when God or the Trinity lets such a dangerous devil roam about amongst quite nice people, nobody is there to punish God for it, which is an outrageous thing; what is not allowed to man should not be allowed to God.

Well then, three functions are represented by the Trinity.

One is obviously human because it is designated by a human head; that is man's consciousness, the one function that he has succeeded in detaching from the eternal sea of unconsciousness.

Naturally when he has only one, it would not be to him a superior function.

We have a psychological approach and so now we call it that, but with only one, there is no comparison, so why call it superior?

We should say rather the one function differentiated from the general unconscious, and that one function is a very miserable inferior thing in comparison with the unconscious.

Moreover, that it is stolen from the gods makes man feel inferior and sinful, and therefore we have to purify ourselves from the diabolic admixture of nature.

You can read about that in the text of the Catholic mass, where they even exorcize the salt that is to be mixed with the baptismal water, and the incense, because everything is supposed to be contaminated by the devil.

The smoke at the altar is in order to disinfect it spiritually.

"So may be absent all diabolical fraud,"s the Latin text expresses it. Circumcision is a rite of exorcism, to enable one to escape from impure natural elemental influences.

As long as we have not undergone these ceremonials, we are impure and contaminated and unacceptable to the grace of God. That is the beginning of man.

He feels his utter helplessness and misery in every respect; he knows how much depends upon his efforts, and he knows that all sorts of devils are against him.

Therefore the primitive symbolized his becoming a man by his ceremonies of initiation.

Now, I say that when he succeeds in detaching another function, he is about even with the gods.

Then he begins to have a psychology and realizes that, if he should be able to detach a third function, he might create for himself a sort of divinity.

That is really the case in the Eastern religions, where we see that the gods become more and more illusions.

The Easterner will admit that the gods are real, that Shiva, for instance, is a reality to inferior people; but with increase of consciousness, they also are illusions.

That is shown very beautifully in the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Bardo Thodol, where the dead are instructed by the priests that the gods are illusions which have to be overcome.

It is one of the neatest pieces of psychology that I have ever seen.

Now, I hope you understand what I said about that acquired divinity. It doesn't mean that you are going to be gods.

The most confusing thing seems to be that people think the three functions must be specific functions.

That is not at all the case.

You see, there are always the types, and for certain people a certain one is differentiated and three are unconscious; that is, the majority of functions are unconscious.

That is what the Trinity means; it is by no means three specific functions.

Is that plain?

For those among you who don't know why we speak of four functions, I must explain that they are the four sides of our orientation in the field of consciousness.

I am unable to add anything to that.

The four functions are based upon the fact that our consciousness says there is something in the unconscious.

Sensation is a sort of perception, it knows the thing is there; thinking tells us what it is; feeling says what it is worth to one, whether one accepts or rejects it; and intuition tells us what it might become, its possibilities.

I must confess I don't know what more I could include.

I could discover no other.

With that everything is said.

And the peculiar fact that there are just these four coincides with the fact, which I only discovered much later, that in the East they hold the same conviction.

In their mandalas, the four gates of consciousness express the four functions, and the four colours express the qualities of the four functions.

You can see that very well in the text I mentioned, the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

Are there other questions concerning the functions?

Mrs. Henley: I think most of us are clear as to thinking, feeling, and sensation, but we are least clear about intuition. Could you say something more about that?

Dr. Jung: Sensation simply tells you the visible, tangible, sense qualities, while intuition is a sort of guess about its possibilities.

Your senses tell you that here is something, and your thinking tells you what it is, but it takes a lot of intuition to tell you what is behind the walls.

If you allow an unbeautiful way of .expressing it, intuition is a sort of elephant's trunk put into someone's spinal cord-to go into and behind it and smell it out.

Therefore good intuition is often expressed by the nose.

A primitive uses his nose, he smells out thieves and ghosts, and it is the same with mediums in our day; they go into a house and sniff and say "ghosts" if it is haunted.

One may discover a peculiar psychology by smell, as I told you recently.

You smell a rat-that is intuition.

Dr. Deady: What is the condition of the differentiation of the three functions still in the unconscious of the relatively primitive man? Could you say that they were differentiated?

Dr. Jung: No, they are not differentiated. Anything that is in the unconscious is contaminated with everything else.

Only the conscious function is differentiated, That is the split between man and the pleroma, or God, or the universal unconsciousness, whatever you like to call it.

He stole one function from the gods.

That is beautifully illustrated by the myth of Prometheus stealing fire from the gods.

Whatever consciousness man has acquired he had to steal from them.

He emerged from the thick cloud of general unconsciousness, and it was only by tearing loose one of the functions that he was enabled to become detached.

How that was brought about I don't know; it is a peculiar quality in the psychological structure of man; animals have not that ability to free themselves from the original psyche. It is a kind of dissociability.

That is mysterious, one can speculate about it; we do not know how that came about, but it was so.

Dr. Baynes: 1 think that some of the confusion which I have happened upon comes from the question of the auxiliary functions, that is, when any of the functions have actually appeared and operate
as auxiliary functions but have not attained the per se character of a major function. From your point of view you would use the term "differentiated" only for that function, or functions, which
has gained a per se value, wouldn't you?

Dr. Jung: Yes, quite.

Dr. Baynes: For instance, when you find thinking acting as a trace-horse to intuition, you would not give that the quality of a differentiated function?

Dr. Jung: The function which has the per se character, the superior or differentiated function, can really be handled, but the auxiliary function is only relatively manageable; with that, already the trouble begins.

Dr. Baynes: Like those figures, half animal, half man.

Dr. Jung: Yes, one figure is human-headed, another ape-headed, and when one begins to base oneself on the ape-headed function, there is trouble; one contacts the animal kingdom and in comes the unconscious.

It has happened to everybody that he meets a problem which he cannot settle with the superior function-say a thinker who discovers that he needs feeling.

Then his sensation or intuition will lead him to a new world.

In the famous dream of the mouse, that could be called just as well the intuitive function, since this man is no longer able to settle his life-problem through his intellect.

No sooner has he discovered this than the mouse runs away; the autonomous factor begins to rule because he is no longer at the head of the show.

Then life begins to unfold.

That is the reason why we understood the mouse as a sort of sign or symptom that something new is due to come.

Mrs. Baynes: You said you thought of primitive man as being three against one. Do you think of modern man as being two against two?

Dr. Jung: That is very difficult to say, but I am inclined to think so from certain signs of the times.

A very simple example is the peculiar fact that only in the course of the nineteenth century have attempts been made to rehabilitate old Judas.

That means a sense of justice coming up over against the gods.

Very respectable, wellmeaning people have made desperate attempts at it, and they have their following, a large audience who appreciate that attempt at rehabilitation.

That is only one small symptom, but there are many others, the fact of Bible criticism for instance, a scientific enterprise meaning that taboos are now checked, which can be due only to the fact that man feels competent to manage them.

The authority that was formerly indubitable and unquestionable has now decreased in importance, and man has advanced correspondingly, he is able to criticize it, he can face it without fear of a thunderbolt.

But there are other thunderbolts which come from below.

We always look above, but we need no umbrella against thunderbolts the devil comes from an entirely different quarter.

Now we come to the other question.

Mrs. Crowley says: "Will you some time give us more of the symbolism and analysis of the hermaphroditic figure? You said before that you would go into it more fully."

The hermaphrodite is an important symbol that often occurs at a particular stage of psychological development. It is an archetype.

A German scholar has recently written a book about it; he collected a lot of material about this being of two sexes that plays a role in all sorts of mystical beliefs, and also in the old Hermetic philosophy.

I don't want to enter into the history of that symbol now, I will only call your attention to the fact that the Platonic all-round being is a hermaphrodite, a bisexual condition which means asexual, because
the two conditions check each other.

lt is the symbol for the infantile not-yet-differentiated state, for as soon as the sexes are differentiated there is consciousness.

Therefore in the analytical development the hermaphrodite is a symbol for the preconscious condition, when the definite thing that the person should become is not yet conscious.

But since it is in the unconscious, such a symbol might occur in their dreams.

In the case of our patient, it is the intimation of a superior guiding factor, of a superior self, but still in the hermaphroditic condition.

You see, consciousness means discernment, separation; but here the pairs of opposites are not yet separated, so there is no consciousness.

It is what I designate as a pleromatic condition, a very apt term which I take from an old philosophy to designate a potential condition of things, where nothing has become, yet everything is there.

That is the condition in the unconscious; the functions are not yet differentiated, black is white and white is black.

I told you that interesting fact in the differentiation of words, that in both English and German, the adjectives better, best, come from the same root as bad.

That is a case of the original state of identity of the opposites.

It is the state of paradise when the wolf is still sleeping with the lamb and nobody eats his neighbour except for fun, where things are in the primordial peace together, the original unconscious pleromatic condition, symbolized by the hermaphrodite.

It is an unconscious anticipation of a future ideal

condition, as the history of paradise shows.

You see, the original wonderful garden of paradise was lost forever, and, according to old cabalistic lore, when Adam and Eve were exiled, God put paradise into the future, which means that the original condition, an undifferentiated unconscious, becomes a goal, and the things which were separated after the first sin shall come together again.

That is a bit of the history of the development of consciousness.

For in the beginning man feels an exile, he is practically alone in his consciousness, and it is only by increase of consciousness that he discovers his real identity with nature again.

Therefore the very culmination of Eastern wisdom is tat tvam asi, which means "That art Thou"-each thing myself, myself in everything, the final identity of all things again-yet conscious in that state of paradise.

But in the hermaphroditic condition nothing is conscious.

So that original condition of pleroma, of paradise, is really the mother from which consciousness emerges.

The symbol of that original condition turns up again and again in different forms during the development of consciousness, always portraying a thing that is in the past, yet it is also a symbol for the future.

For there will be nothing in the future that has not been in the past, because we can only work out of the material that is given us.

The original condition is the symbol for the future condition, the idea of the kingdom of heaven is a repetition of paradise.

One sees these symbols in the drawings of patients, in the circle or globe, for instance, expressing the all round perfect being, containing, as it were, the other half, which is the idea of the primordial Platonic being.

Here is Mrs. Crowley's second question:

"Will you suggest how the dreamer might have alighted from his air excursion had feeling not been the inferior function-had that been his superior function, for example?"

It would have been exactly the same, because it does not matter what the three unconscious functions are.

Mrs. Crowley: Would his reaction be the same? I was wondering how we could learn to differentiate more carefully, and in the case of an individual with whom feeling was the superior function, what
the reaction in such a dream would be.

Dr. Jung: The reaction would be the same on principle, yet of course the dream would have been a little different.

Mrs. Crowley: I meant more from the angle of approaching reality from the feeling point of view.

Dr. Jung: Whether you rationalize the world through thinking or feeling comes to the same thing in the long run. The ultimate result would be exactly the same.

Mrs. Crowley: Yes, you really answered my question earlier.

Dr. Jung: Well now, we have not yet finished the dream.

We still have not dealt with the alighting from the aeroplane.

The man falls down and has difficulty in getting up again.

And his right hand is injured, it begins to swell and seems to be broken.

You remember our dreamer associates with the right hand energy, the activity of man, his efficiency in material or practical life.

How do you understand that?

Mrs. Baynes: He must give up his rational attitude. He must turn to the left and find another way in the unconscious.

Dr. Jung: Yes, but what does that mean in practical life?

Mr. Henderson: It affects his business.

Dr. Jung: That is it.

At about the time when he had this dream, he showed signs of unrest, which I thought might have to do with his finances, but it now slowly becomes obvious that he really is not interested in his business, it is no longer of importance to him.

He lays the only thing he is interested in is the human being and life in general.

Well, he can afford it, that problem was not so bad.

People who have to be interested in their business for their livelihood would not be so interested in the problem of the other side.

For it is all balanced, all regulated.

Of course, everybody believes that his problem is the worst, but in reality it is not the impossible that is expected of the human being.

But that his power is broken is what a man of his calibre minds the most.

You see, the right arm is always the symbol of power.

Those of you who have read my Psychology of the Unconscious will have found there the motif of twisting the arm out of action; or the hip, like the legend of Jacob in the Old Testament, where he was wrestling with the angel of the Lord all night, and the angel twisted his hips.

That is the destruction of man's selfish power, and that is inevitable.

The differentiated function is nearly always misused for one's own selfish power.

It is an invaluable means to have as a weapon in the beginning, but usually one uses it for too selfish ends and then comes the compensation of the unconscious.

Then something will come up which takes the weapon out of your hands.

Therefore in the hero myth, in the supreme struggle, the hero has to fight with his bare hands, even his usual weapon fails him; the hero who has overcome the monster with cunning from within finds his arm twisted.

He is deprived of his superior function for the sake of the next function which is waiting for differentiation, for it seems that nature is continuing that desire to dissociate man from his original unconscious condition.

As nature has pushed one function out into consciousness, so she seems to force man to become conscious of a second one, and for that purpose-because the next one has to be developed-the differentiated function suddenly becomes useless.

I think it will be useful if I make a diagram again, it helps to a clearer understanding.

We always represent the four functions in the form of a cross, and as I put thinking in the East, feeling would be in the West, because feeling is opposite to thinking.

One has to omit the standpoint of thinking very carefully in order to realize one's feeling, and vice versa.

Then down below would be sensation and up above be intuition.

Now let us assume that the differentiated function would be intuition and the auxiliary function thinking; then the division would be about here (A). That makes man largely conscious of intuition, and then the line of division (BC) between the conscious and the unconscious in a pure intuitive type would be as I have indicated.

Now, if he gets into a situation in which his intuition doesn't help him-say, for instance, when he should think about things-then his intuition is of no use, it is the worst nonsense. -

When the necessity comes of his understanding what the situation is, instead of always running ahead chasing new possibilities, he has to suppress intuition to a certain extent; for intuition will go on overcrowding his conscious with new contents, and whenever he begins something new he has to run after it.

Therefore he must twist out the arm intuition and give all that power to his thought, and that is usually done through an act of concentration, which is largely a matter of will.

Or if a man is unable to concentrate, then something will happen to him that enforces it.

Very often those intuitive types get a physical illness, tuberculosis or ulcers of the stomach and other abdominal troubles chiefly; also peculiar hysterical troubles, which may produce all sorts of symptoms that immobilize such people, lay them low, and force them to exclude possibilities.

Then they have to keep still and cannot run after things; they are put into situations where they cannot escape thinking, where the only thing they can do is to think furiously.

That is how a function is paralyzed or killed for the sake of another function.

In this case the individual moves on here (D), and here he approaches the sphere of unconsciousness.

So here is terrible danger, the inferior function which is opposite to the superior one; that is the very devil.

That neighbourhood becomes most uncanny, one shuns it as much as possible, one is afraid of all that might be behind that wall of the unconscious.

Therefore we make a different move, we go to the lesser danger, in this case feeling (F), and only when we have the three on that side do we dare to attack that thing.

There must be three against one, it is the acquisition of the triangle that fights the one.

Now if you remember still those verses by Lowell which our dreamer has quoted (why do you laugh?), you will see that they fit in with the spirit at least of all our deliberations.

It is as if his associations arose from his having overheard our discussion here, so we are well within the scope of the dreamer's feeling.

I think we can put that dream aside now and go on to the next one, which I have already mentioned, the dream about the triplets [26].

It was read in the last seminar, but I will go over it again as quickly as possible for the benefit of the new members.

He says that his wife has borne triplets, two of them still-born, but the third remains alive.

That is the whole dream, and he says that it repeated itself despite the fact that he can remember nothing else connected with it.

He only remembers that he was present at the birth and that the midwife was there and took away the dead children.

In his associations, he says that twins or triplets give him the impression of too much of a blessing. It seems to him perfectly sufficient if only the third child remains alive.

He thought a good deal about what they meant and came to the conclusion that they were spiritual children, as they certainly had nothing to do with his real children.

The peculiar fact that two children are still-born he cannot bring down to concrete reality, so he makes the assumption that they are still-born attempts, because children as psychological symbols often have that meaning, just as every man is an attempt of nature.

So he thinks the two dead children represent his spiritualistic and Yoga studies, which seem to him today to be perfectly superfluous spiritual abortions.

He says that I am the midwife who took the dead ones away, because after he came to me he saw no point in those other attempts, the theosophical interests.

I never said a word against them, because there is something quite definitely interesting in those things.

I know that if there is anything in them for him he will cling to them, and if not, he will leave them.

He says he played with those subjects for a while, and the third attempt, the child that is alive, is the slow development of his relationship to his soul through analysis.

He uses the German word Seele, which may mean the anima or the more Christian concept of the soul.

He obviously means his relationship to the inner world of experience.

The dream seems to be very simple, but there is a theoretical catch in it.

He is quite satisfied with his interpretation of it: that the triplets are three attempts at a new form of life, because to him it was an entirely new enterprise to seek spiritual development.

Formerly he was the head of a big business, and when he withdrew he was left to face the question "And what now?"

He was forty-five years old, and what to do becomes a very serious question when one is confronted with the problem of having nothing to do, yet having to find an outlet somewhere.

He took up so-called spiritual things first, for people who are ignorant of psychology easily take an interest in ghost seances, telepathy, and occultism in general.

So it was quite natural, and apparently what he says about the little dream is satisfactory, yet there is a catch in it.

If you rigorously follows the principles of dream interpretation, you will know what it is.

Mrs. Sigg: It seems that these three children are born at the same time, but it was not at the same time that he began those studies.

Dr. Jung: Yes, that is really a bit strange, and he pays no attention to it, but that is a minor catch-a little mouse-hole in comparison to a trap-door. Where is the real tunnel?

Mrs. Nordfeldt: It was his wife who had the children.

Dr. Jung: Yes, and what did I tell you about that?

I will repeat that famous rule of thumb which aroused the animus.

If the dreamer dreams of his wife, then it is his wife.

When you dream of a person who is in vital relation to you, either by actual blood relationship or in any really vital connection-anybody who has a hand in your psychological structure-then you must look at the person in the dream, at least for a while, as if he was really the person himself and not a symbol for something in yourself.

For instance, there is a pretty vital relation between the patient and the analyst, and when a patient dreams of him we can assume that the analyst is meant; if it should be something unfavourable, the analyst is confronted by the criticism, perhaps a new discovery about himself which is possibly true; at all events, he has to take that possibility as real, and only when it is duly considered and nothing has been found, even with a great deal of consideration, is he allowed to assume that it might be something rather subjective in the patient.

Also, the analyst sometimes dreams of the patient with whom he has a more or less vital relationship.

For the relationship between the analyst and patient is vital; if not, it is dead.

Some are more vital than others-the most vital when he doesn't understand, when he has struck a snag somehow.

Then he might dream of the patient, and the best policy is to inform him or her because there might be something in it which the patient would see right away.

Naturally, it is only relatively advanced cases which give one such trouble.

Otherwise one doesn't dream of them at all. I tell you that to show you how serious I am about taking such figures as real.

So when the patient dreams that his wife has brought forth triplets, I am in the disagreeable situation of having to explain why his wife should have brought forth triplets.

If we had not such a rule of thumb I could be perfectly satisfied with his explanation of the dream; he was quite ready to go to sleep on it, leave it at that.

Yet there is that string-he dreams of his wife and it must be his wife, I am confronted with that fact.

Then Mrs. Sigg has brought up the fact that his spiritual children, Yoga and theosophy and analysis, were not born at the same time, and one couldn't call them triplets when one was born in 1927, one in 1928, and the other in 1929.

The idea of triplets includes the fact that they must have been born at the same time practically, it is the same pregnancy.

That is very difficult-where does his wife come in?

Obviously we have to take his associations pretty seriously that these children are attempts, that is the most reasonable explanation.

You see, it makes a tremendous difference when we say that it is his wife who brings forth. Can you explain that puzzle? You remember we alluded to it in the last seminar.7

Mrs. Crowley: It was a sort of psychic reaction.

Mrs. Baynes: You said about this specific case, when you discussed this phase of the dream, that it was as if he were in such close participation mystique with his wife that he could take her as himself subjectively, and it was true that she also was going to be productive.

Dr. Jung: That is it.

As you know, this man has practically no relation with his wife, he cannot talk to her because she much prefers to cling to traditional things, to stay in a safe refuge against the chaotic possibilities of the mind, as many a man clings to a safe marriage against erotic possibilities.

This absence of relationship is compensated in the unconscious.

You see, when you are living with somebody with whom you have no real relationship, you are unconsciously connected.

And that peculiar unconscious relationship produces a psychological condition which could be compared to a sort of continuum where both function, as if they were both in the same tank under water.

They are under the same cover, in the same boat, which makes a particular kind of immediate relationship.

This unconscious relationship produces most peculiar phenomena, such as dreams which clearly do not belong to the individual.

So when it is a matter of husband and wife, the husband may dream the dreams of the wife, or the other way around; or one of them may .be forced to do something which proceeds not from his own psychology but from the psychology of the other.

Those are symptoms of such a participation mystique.

Obviously that man’s conscious relation to his wife is insufficient, so here we can assume an unconscious contamination in which he as well as his wife functions.

You see, his wife has a marked resistance against any kind of thinking, as he has against his Eros side. She will not use her mind.

A thing must be ready-made and safe, guaranteed for at least two thousand years, backed up by the highest authority, before she will accept it.

It must be absolutely water- and air-tight and nothing to be changed.

Of course, that is perfectly unnatural; it is abnormal and machine-like; something has been killed, and it has therefore been compensated in her unconscious, where she produces extraordinary things of which we do not know.

There she thinks furiously, there she is busy with all sorts of radical things, perhaps with religion.

If we had her dreams we would see all that.

Her unconscious is in a real turmoil, and it is repressed and cannot boil over into the conscious, but in the night it creeps into the open canals of her husband's brains.

His mind is open and he speaks it out and shocks her out of her wits, because it is her own stuff he is talking, the stuff she is talking in the night with the devils.

And likewise, on the other side, what she says in the conscious is to a great extent brought forth by the unconscious feelings of his anima.

When the patient had this dream I didn't tell him all this, because at that stage it would have been wrong to preach too much wisdom.

It was more important that he should learn to make his own way in analysis, catch the feeling that he could handle the stuff.

At first it was very strange to him, but now we shall see his attempts to interpret the dreams coming to the foreground, and I did not want to interfere with that. In the case of such a man it is very important
to be on good terms with his superior function, as in the same way it is wrong to put oneself in opposition to a woman's Eros.

Otherwise one works against a great power, which is too much waste of energy.

Now, all this would explain that dream and also to a certain extent the strange fact that the triplets, the efforts, were born all at the same time.

That is an intimation that when a thing happens in time it becomes history, but in the unconscious there is no time, it is eternal.

The unconscious can speak of things which are absolutely separated through long intervals of time as being together; to us they are separated but to the unconscious they are not.

They are like the pairs of opposites, like black and white, light and dark, the future and the past-in the unconscious there is no difference.

So these triplets are all born at once, yet there are years between.

The three attempts are really one attempt; it was one particular stimulation which probably came from his wife.

It was the moment when he felt that he had come to an end with his rational intellectual attitude and when Eros came up in him.

It was an entirely unconscious moment.

I think that certain very intuitive people might be able to realize such a moment, but usually it happens completely in the unconscious.

In analysing dreams at such a time, one is confronted with the most disagreeable problems.

Something tremendous has happened, and the patient says he knows nothing of it, that it is perfect nonsense.

The analyst knows that something has happened but is not yet visible; it has happened in the pleroma and has not come through into time.

It must have been a very definite moment when our dreamer unconsciously felt that thing had come to an end, and at the same moment in his wife, only the reverse naturally.

And that was the moment when the triplets were born. It is like a child dreaming of his future.

I have seen cases where children have anticipated the main points of their coming life in very simple terms; they were anticipations of a whole lifetime, everything together, and happening in reality thirty, forty, or fifty years hence.

Even most extraordinary problems can be dreamt by children, when one cannot see at all how a child could conceive of such things.

Is it that they get it through their parents?

We still don't know. I think it must have to do with the collective unconscious, but that is another question which we will not go into now.

Dr. Baynes: There seems to be some connection between the depotentiation of the Trinity and the birth of the triplets.

Dr. Jung: Yes, that is the real interpretation of the dream, that there is a continuity.

When the aeroplane comes down, it means that the Trinity is depotentiated, dissolved, and here it appears again; it is now born out of man.

The Trinity that has been in an unconscious condition before is now reborn into consciousness.

Miss Wolff' In that case I should say that it is important that the triplets are born of a woman, because the Christian religion leaves out the woman, excepting the Virgin.

Dr. Jung: It is well that somebody stands up for the woman.

You see, when good old Sophia became a member of the Trinity, as the wife of the Lord God, the old Fathers never liked it, and she was abolished except in the Coptic Church; they had only the
Virgin Mary as a sort of spiritual midwife in the neighbourhood.

Since then the female element has been absent from the Trinity, but now she comes back.

It is a very remarkable fact that now the woman should bring. forth the lost Trinity.

Dr. Draper: Why should two of them be dead?

Dr. Jung: That is a very serious question.

We must know now who the dead children are.

That dream is full of hooks. Keep that question in mind. ~Carl Jung, Dream Analysis Seminar, Pages 587-602