This essay is about psychological reality. Paradoxically, psychological reality is mythical. It is dreamlike. There is psychological reality, i.e. we are conscious beings with unconscious experiences. Just beyond the conscious mind the psyche is constantly in a dream-state. Hence when we drift off to sleep all of that dream-world takes over.

The repression of the conscious ego relaxes its grip and soon lets go altogether and the more “real you” takes over, the fantasist. Hence the child who has watched a horror movie that night (and was frightened by it) will have nightmares due to his conscious defenses sleeping and the fantasy material (that he has turned into symbolic images of fear) breakthrough. Likewise the mother whose child has perished in a tragic accident, whilst not being able to repress her horrific feelings consciously, will have absolutely no success if she ever gets any sleep, because again, her repressing conscious defenses will be down.

Admittedly they are extreme examples (especially the latter) but the psyche is constantly dreaming anyway in a dialogue with consciousness. The fact of the matter is that even if ones life is mundane the deeper part of the mind will be day-dreaming and if a hypnotist were to make the conscious mind sleep or to go to the borderline of waking consciousness and sleep, the individual would experience his dream world reality. This is totally irrespective of the intelligence or excitement of his life, or of any other factors.

Hence Depth Psychology speaks of MYTHICAL PSYCHOLOGICAL REALITY. The “Mythical” is an apt description of all of the fantasy-like material just beyond the surface of narrow ego consciousness. Obviously “Psychological” is self-explanatory whilst “Reality” stands for the fact that whilst the material is mythical it is nevertheless undeniably real. I mean that it is “real” in the sense that, say I ask you to say to yourself (non-audibly) the alphabet. So you say in the secrecy of your own mind, a,b,c,d,e,,,..x,y,z. You know that you have spoken those words. It’s real. It’s psychological reality. This may seem obvious but it’s a different type of reality to that which physical scientists deal with. Physical scientists deal with the literal world of concrete reality. Depth Psychology deals with the mythical world of psychological reality.

People are however prone on one extreme to dismiss such psychic reality as “only psychological” whilst at the same time taking the psychological in their own lives all too literally. The question becomes, why would people take psychological life literally? That is a good question because in taking psychological life too literally one becomes neurotic. Our fantasy, dreamlike psychological reality is not the same as the physical reality that is “out-there”.

Yet (for example) the nervous and frightened child experiences (due to chronically misguided) interpretation, the psychological world as massively real. Everything impacts on her as if it were a threat. It isn’t about the outer world in such a case. Other children are happy with the same outer world experiences. The frightened and nervous child thus, has false perspective. Now, the clever person may argue here that all children have a false perspective, or that, if all of psychological life is mythical, there is no “true perspective”.

Correct, but there are degrees of health and ill health. I do not say that the nervous and frightened child should be dismissed with a shake of the head. Now such a child (if the psychologist Alfred Adler is to be believed) may end up over-compensating for this nervous fearful psychology by becoming a power-tripper in adult life. All the words associated with “power” are relevant here, dogmatic, pedantic, pretentious, one-sided, narrow-minded, close-minded, and so on. It could be said that such a person swaps “out of control” fear for “control-freakery”.

So in a sense he is still in a world of neurotic fear. He’s up-tight and due to exerting such a large amount of control over himself, he is bound to do the same over others. Jung calls that “projection”. So to return to the question, “Why would people take psychological life literally?” I have answered that question in the example case just given. Again, I have given an admittedly extreme example to begin with. But again, the example can be applied to virtually everyone. This is because the archetype that is activated in the example of the adult power-tripper is that of the cultural ego.

Thankfully mythical psychological reality is the psychological nature for all conscious human beings whether living 30,000 years ago or now. Hence we always have a wider context for our psychological dispositions. Un-thankfully the ego often feels repelled at this and blocks the potential psychological health of the wider psyche. Yet the ego is not literally real either. It is just an archetypal disposition. But it is the culturally dominant one. And this ego power spreads like the disease that it is through all things. Its disease infects individuals, the fields of knowledge, societies etc etc. Yet if one can embrace the Depth Psychology that I will outline here, and include within that embrace, the destruction of one’s ego, then it is claimed here that one will be psychologically, better off.

Part 1: Narrative

Reading stories, assuming that they are enjoyable, wakes up vast unconscious aspects of one’s psyche. One cannot wake up vast unconscious aspects of their psyche through an individual choice of their ego. If the individual ego had such a simple light “on and off” switch then we would all know about it and I wouldn’t be writing this and Freud and Jung would have been on the dole queue.

One of course has to enter the story on-trust. Sometimes the story will be boring and we will have wasted our time and energy. But if we never enter a story on-trust then we will waste our whole life. Because, unfortunately, the human psyche is largely unconscious (i.e. unaware) and (as said) it needs the vast majority of it to be awakened and it cannot do this itself.

So in effect it is not we but the narrative that wakes the psyche up. Only then do we participate in a two-way dialogue with the narrative.

Already, I have made the main points that I wished to in this part of the essay. (Awaken the psyche and dialogue). As for being bored rigid by reading stories, there is a great deal of quality literature out there. Classics are the safest bet. You can (over a period of time) heavily weight the positive experience of reading in one’s favor.

The consequences of failing to cede control “from” oneself “to” the narrative at the start of the story are as follows. One will not engage in the reading. One will not enter the story. If one lives like this forever then one will live a purely personal life, be prone to neurosis, over-controlling of oneself and others. One must allow oneself the opportunity to be moved by narrative that has proven popular among many. It must however be made clear that one never awakens all of the unconscious aspects of their psyche thus becoming fully conscious. This is a simple point in depth psychology (i.e. uncontroversial).

An excellent analogy here is with the outer universe. One experiences more of the universe if they visit another planet but there is always an infinite quantity of the universe that remains to be experienced. Nevertheless it may still have been a very good idea to have visited the planet!

In conclusion to this part of the essay, we can only say (at this point) that (through reading story) we experience more of the psyche, that we open up and benefit from it. We cannot say that we grasp the psyche anymore than we can grasp the universe. This neurotic desire for grasping, for greedy power and control, is a disease of western civilization. Depth Psychology links those negatives to excess ego. It’s the self-absorbed ego that blocks some people from making the first step of ceding to the narrative. Thus the ego does not allow more of the psyche to be experienced.

Part 2: De-Literalizing for Health

The cultural ego thrives on deceit. The cultural ego seems to want to believe in literalism beyond the physical. This absurdity (and that is what it is, an absurdity) is completely and totally opposed to the Depth Psychology I am discussing here. The Depth Psychology being discussed here pleads with the reader to “See Through”. “Seeing Through” is a prerequisite for health. Here I quote the Post-Jungian writer James Hillman:

“If the progression from sanity toward mental illness is distinguished by degrees of literalism, then the therapeutic road from psychosis back to sanity is one of going back through the same hermeneutic passage – deliteralising.” (Hillman, 1983, p111)

Hillman continues (note that I regard this as the key passage in this essay)

,“To be sane we must recognize our beliefs as fictions, and see through our hypotheses as fantasies. For the difference between madness and sanity depends not on society or politics, upbringing or chemistry, but wholly on our sense of fiction. Even more: to take literally any of the hypotheses such as upbringing or chemistry, society or politics, as the real truth and reason for mental illness is simply mental illness itself, now in the form of an explanatory fiction taken literally rather than heuristically.” (ibid)

The psyche’s prima materia (what psychology has got to work with) is a whole load of fantasy material. As said, hypnotize a person to the borderline of conscious-unconscious and it is all images with feelings. But the waking ego puts on a persona (mask) and pretends that it is all literal. And that is to the detriment of her wider psyche.

So the ego tries to make reality out of fiction. Its only defense is unawareness, ignorance, unconsciousness. Of course if one consciously does myth then one is closer to reality, hence closer to a psychologically healthier way of living.

Something that I have obviously implied, but not directly said in this essay is that there cannot possibly be a single identity. I say that I have “obviously” implied this due to my de-literalizing of the ego. If the ego is just another archetype, if the ego is merely “cultural” then it isn’t real as most people like to describe real. A “single identity” is a myth. Because all that is psychological is mythical reality.

Below I quote Hillman again because he puts what I have been saying in a different style. Furthermore, he progresses this essay on towards psychological dissociation (note that Hillman below terms it, dismemberment), although again it should be clear that dissociation (or dismemberment) has already been discussed in this essay albeit the term has not been used.

“If the structure of Dionysus logic is drama, the particular embodiment of Dionysus logic is the actor, Dionysian logos is the enactment of fiction, oneself an as-if-being whose reality comes wholly from imagination and the belief it imposes. The actor is and is not, a person and a persona, divided and undivided – as Dionysus was called. The self divided is precisely where the self is authentically located, Authenticity is the perpetual dismemberment of being and not-being a self, a being that is always in many parts like a dream with a full cast. We all have identity crises because a single identity is a delusion of the monotheistic mind that would defeat Dionysus at all costs. We all have dispersed consciousness through all our body parts, wandering wombs, we are all hysterics. Authenticity is the illusion, playing it, seeing through it, from within as we play it”.(Hillman, 1983, p39)

Part 3: A Note on Physical Medical Health Science

Straight away I must say that my field of knowledge is Depth Psychology, I am not getting carried away, this part of the essay is just about making it clear where “literalism” is valid. What I say concerning the physical in this part of the essay requires only the “experience”of it, not the ’study’ of it.

The arguments being expounded in this essay are all to do with psychological, mythical reality, i.e. not just the fantasies of the ego, but the fantasies beyond it as well. Of course there is no physical demarcation although the ego erects an artificial one. It blocks, or to use Freudian language, it represses.

Physical and Mythical Psychological reality are the two key areas in a human’s life because they determine his or her life. Physical Health Science is “literal” and far more understood than the psyche is. When I say that Physical Health Science is “literal” I mean things like “toothache” is literally real. It isn’t a “real fantasy”, there really is something literally wrong with the tooth! A “broken leg” is also literally real. Psychological pain attaches itself to the physical pain but can be vanquished by anesthetic such as gas, thus sending the individual into her dream world reality. The physical injury however, remains “literally real”.

So the physical is literal. The psychological reality is a mythical reality. So true is this that those who go to war and come close to the end of their physical existence, often come back home wondering why they used to stress over trivial things. Such people would be the biggest supporters of the Depth Psychology being outlined here, which says that everything is mythical except the physical.

The ego is threatened by the “T” word, “Truth”. Yet the wider psyche of which the ego is part of is enriched by truth. As said its problem is unconsciousness. The ego fails to realize that the wider psyche needs awakening.

Part 4: Credit to Jung

In this part of the essay I will use James Hillman (and to a far lesser extent) Sherry Salman, who both effectively give credit to Carl Jung, the pioneer behind the potential for the likes of me to gain health. In an essay like this it is only right and proper that some credit is given as there is a debt of gratitude.

“Know Thyself in Jung’s manner means to become familiar with, to open oneself to and listen to, that is to know and discern, daimons. Entering one’s interior story takes a courage similar to starting a novel. We have to engage with person’s whose autonomy may radically alter, even dominate our thoughts and feelings, Fictional and factual, they and we, are drawn together like threads into a mythos, a plot until death do us part.”(Hillman, 1983, p55)

Hillman continues,

,“Just to remind ourselves what a radical shattering move – theological, epistemological, ontological – Jung’s personifying was, let me merely pronounce the usual judgment on daimons that is part of our western religious psychology. Whether Eastern Church or Roman, whether Old Testament or New, whether Protestant or Catholic – daimons are no good things. They are part of the world of Satan, of Chaos, of Temptation. They have been written against by major Christian Theologians down through the centuries, associated with the cult of serpent worship in the midst of Christian Europe, and they are, according to the authority of Matthew’s Gospel, the source of possession, sickness and magic.” (ibid)

Hillman continues by saying that the likes of Plato and Plontinus referred to these images as figures from “the middle realm” (ibid). Hillman says that “even Eros was a daimon.” (ibid),

“But the dogmatic crystallization of our religious culture demonized the daimons. As a fundamental component of polytheistic paganism, they had to be negated and denied by Christian theology which projected its repression upon the daimons, Thus Jung’s move which turned directly to the images and figures of the middle realm was a heretical demonic move. His move into the imagination, had already been prejudiced in our religious language as demonic and in our clinical language as multiple personality or as schizophrenia. Yet this radical activation of imagination was Jung’s method of Know Thyself.” (Hillman, 1983, p56)

Sherry Salman (writing in ‘The Cambridge Companion to Jung’) says,

,“Most importantly, Jung “depathologized” the archetypal and transpersonal layer of the psyche by verifying its function as the creative matrix for the entire personality. Repression or denial of it leads to the ill’s which modern society indeed suffers from, a sense of failure and depression in the face of unavoidable suffering of life, and a consequent fascination with those who are identified with the archetypal psyche such as religious fanatics and glamorous or power-hungry personalities. Jung’s contribution was to point a way toward a more creative relationship with the unconscious, and his personal devotion to this process provided a beautifully rendered illustration of what may be discovered when the psyche meets itself.” Salman in Eisendrath and Dawson, 1997, p68)

Footnote:

When writing about Depth Psychology themes I am always wondering how much basic background to write about. It is certainly vitally important to go beyond Jung’s signature concepts. This is because even Jung desires you too. Jung’s work should be used as a spring-board. Moreover his work should be used not for purposes of an intellectual exercise, but for health. Jung and Depth Psychology are deep (depth) due to the focus on the unconscious.

Conscious and unconscious are not literally separate. Remember that they aren’t literal physical things. But the cultural conscious ego prevents a feeling of togetherness, hence an artificial split results. The split is felt to be so real that one has to play along with the game of separation. You see, imagine that you are in a social environment, say a party, lots of people are talking.

You are only consciously listening to the one person who is talking to you. Consciously everything else is little more than noise. You think that your mind cannot pick up on any other conversation because you are not listening to it. But then someone near by (in passing) mentions your name. Suddenly you register even though you were not listening. You cannot mention anything else about their conversation. You simply heard your name being mentioned. Similarly you may sit in a café. You are oblivious that the café is playing music very quietly for background atmosphere. But then your favorite group gets played. Suddenly you become consciously aware of the fact.

The point is then that your whole psyche takes in a lot more than just the conscious psyche which as Freud discovered, is hell-bent on REPRESSION. Under hypnosis a lot of material that is not in consciousness at all can be unearthed from the unconscious as it is material that is not lost to the whole psyche, just to the conscious psyche. It is this artificial split that is the reason that Jung refers to conscious and unconscious. It isn’t that there is a real split (demarcation), its more a case of being in the mixing bowl together or conscious drift into unconscious as in waking to sleeping, or a case of cultural ego stamping its artificial authority on the psyche.

Jung writes that the “psychic double” “seldom reaches a degree of intensity that would entitle one to speak of a double personality.’ (Jung in Bishop, 1999, p255)

Part 5: The Mythical Unconscious1

The psyche cannot be bottled therefore it must be said that no chapter, nor even the biggest book in the world can say enough here. (See Part 1). We can only ever give a flavor. Recognize archetypes, enter dialogue with the narrative. E.g. when reading a fictional classic, have some psychological understanding but the story has its say too, entirely so when you first begin the book. It’s not just about the story and it’s not just about you. This is so in the same way that a conversation between two people is not just about one of the people involved, but rather requires two way dialogue.

However, whilst the story is about both the “story” and “you” and whilst it may awaken unconscious aspects of your psyche very effectively, you are still a psychological human being prone to dissociation. You can finish the book, encounter a new situation and hence you “dissociate”. New archetypal realities are now experienced. It is when one tries to hold onto a false permanent ego-self that one is in trouble.

Certainly beyond one’s ego consciousness there are images that are always there, but ego consciousness blocks/represses them. However, ego consciousness tires, rests (i.e. sleeps) hence the defenses are down and the “real you psyche” is experienced.

When Jungians refer to “archetypes” we should think of them as perspectives that can be seen from thousands of years ago up to the present day (typical characters/typical characteristics/typical situations) that are seemingly timeless and cross cultural. The benefit of this is that one gains perspective and context.

For example being a present day A-list female celebrity has an historical archetypal context. For tens of thousands of years goddesses have been worshiped. The modern female A-list celebrity attracts the same sort of psychological projection as the ancient goddess. Whilst the female A-list celebrity is only a human being, she would attract a massive amount of news attention if she were (for example) to die in a car crash. A non-celebrity female would merely attract the attention of loved ones and a passing mention on the local news. The celebrity, practically thought of as immortal, would attract world-wide shock and the news wouldn’t let the story drop for several days.

This raises several issues both for the big fan of the celebrity and for the celebrity herself. For example, with reference to the latter, can she shrug her shoulders at the goddess style projection being directed at her? Or does she succumb to it? If she succumbs to it then she will be divided within herself to a massive extent.

This is because she will not be able to live up to it. She will still have the petty rows and worries that she had before she became a goddess. She needs to understand the mythical character but unfortunately there is so much hype around celebrity that one is advised not to become one in the first place. Many celebrities are screwed up (to use layman language!).

As well as an archetypal historical perspective, Depth Psychology is also of use in a cross-over kind of way to the forementioned, as a way of activating “associations” in the individual. This makes dialogue with narrative more effective as opposed to treading treacle! For example a Jungian (or Hillman archetypalist) will have conscious associations regarding (e.g.) “water”, “forest”, “snake”, “tree”, “the Great Mother”.

Part 6: Conclusion

This essay has articulated my Depth Psychology belief in mythical psychological reality. There is no such thing as a single identity. The ego’s attempts to maintain one is neurotic.

“We no longer need to be menaced by the notion of multiple personality.”(Hillman, 1975, p24)

Depth Psychology can be applied in many areas as touched upon at the end of part 5 when referring to “archetypal history”. The Social World is another important area. But in this essay I have discussed the main theme of my Depth Psychology, Mythical Psychological Reality. Here I wish to remind the reader of the main passage in this essay which was Hillman’s (quoted in part 2),

“To be sane we must recognize our beliefs as fictions, and see through our hypotheses as fantasies. For the difference between madness and sanity depends not on society or politics, upbringing or chemistry, but wholly on our sense of fiction. Even more: to take literally any of the hypotheses such as upbringing or chemistry, society or politics, as the real truth and reason for mental illness is simply mental illness itself, now in the form of an explanatory fiction taken literally rather than heuristically.” (Hillman, 1983, p111)

One’s psyche needs to experience, i.e. it wants its emotive potential activated. And one’s psyche needs to be able to dissociate without going neurotic. And then one can have other emotions triggered. And then one’s psyche needs to be able to dissociate again and this cyclical process needs to go on forever. Let’s be clear. This is the way it is. One either enjoys the ride or doesn’t.

In the early part of this essay we saw an example of one who doesn’t enjoy the ride in the form of the frightened child and ego-obsessed adult. The frequency and normalcy of dissociation proves the non-literal nature of the single-identity ego. Therefore when one experiences dissociation the key is to accept it with “indifference” even if that is a big come-down from the “high-point” you were at just a moment ago. Moreover it isn’t just about where you were at and where you are now. In the future new archetypal feelings will be experienced, and they too will dissociate, You get the picture.

Our cultural ego is just one archetype, linked to the persona (mask). One cannot remind a 21st century westerner of that fact enough. See through the ego. The ego isn’t a physical reality.

All of this experiencing and dissociating goes on within the context of human archetypal psychology. Credit goes to James Hillman, for building on the work of Jung, and with the advantage of being second generation, he progressed Depth Psychology, making it all the more relevant to our lives.