This post is an attempt to come to term with some problems found in Jung’s analysis of the UFO phenomenon. As well, it seeks to integrate better his notion of archetype in parasociology. Jung’s last book, written in conjunction with some of his closest and most trusted followers, provides some key answers. In Man and His Symbols, Jung explains in plain terms his methodology and some of his key concepts such as the notion of archetype. The full notice is:
Jung, Carl (Ed.). (1964). Man and His Symbols. New York: Dell.
From the individual to the social analysis
Jung was a psychoanalyst, and unsurprisingly, he saw the universe from an individual’s point of view. Yet, Jung used his approach to study social realities, and other borrowed from him to do the same. Claude Lévy-Strauss, the famous French anthropologist, is probably the best known scholar who borrowed from Jung. Lévy-Strauss attempted to interpret social realities like social myths and cultural taboos using (implicitly) the notion of archetype. Although Lévy-Strauss is considered one of the pillars of modern anthropology, he was not able to show the universality of such method because archetypical myths vary very much from one society to the next. Hence, from a sociological and anthropological perspective, no social theory based on archetypes can be safely formulated. Many in these two disciplines attributed Lévy-Strauss’ problematic theorization of society to his implicit adherence to rigid structural Marxist theories, and that he failed to accept that social reality can be constructed in an almost unlimited number of ways. This may be true, but I think that at the core of Lévy-Strauss’ misuse of archetypical analysis is actually Jung’s own misunderstanding of the difference between social and individual realities. Furthermore, when Jung used his method at the sociological level, he did follow his own established methodology. This is particularly apparent in Flying Saucers (1958).
Jung, like Freud, considered that dreams are the “golden path” to the unconscious, and developed an extensive methodology to interpret dreams in order to understand what is going on with his patients. In Man and His Symbols, he wrote that the “two fundamental points in dealing with dreams are these: First, the dream should be treated as a fact, about which one must make no previous assumption except that somehow it makes sense, and second, the dream is a specific expression of the unconscious.” (p. 18). Clearly, societies do not dream as individuals do, and therefore some adaptations of the method are required. Although myths could be understood as expressions of a socially shared unconscious, they do not behave like dreams. Individual dreaming is an ongoing activity; it is about a multitude individual issue; and it uses a very wide array of symbols. On the other hand, foundational myths of a society tend to be relatively static; it is the same story repeated over time through conscious means. I think these fundamental differences are at the centre of Lévy-Strauss’ theoretical problems. Whatever is considered as collective dreaming it ought to be dynamic, and clearly it must be a product of the social unconscious rather than a conscious effort of repeating the same basic story. Social rumours are certainly fitting better the billet because they are dynamic and spontaneous. And it is exactly what Jung used in Flying Saucers: rumours. Social psi events are another good choice as they are both dynamic and spontaneous, and they can also be found in Flying Saucers (but only if one reads between the lines).
Social psi events, like UFO and alien sightings, are symbolic and similar to dreams in that there are made of “images and ideas that dreams contain cannot possibly be explained solely in terms of memory. They express new thoughts that have not yet reached the threshold of consciousness.” (p. 26). Not only individuals are oftentimes in a dream-like state (the Oz factor), but they often attribute a meaning of some sort to their experience. Furthermore, “symbols, I must point out, do not occur solely in dreams. They appear in all kinds of psychic manifestations. There are symbolic thoughts and feelings, symbolic acts and situations. It often seems that even inanimate objects cooperate with the unconscious in the arrangements of symbolic patterns. There are numerous well-authenticated stories of clocks stopping at the moment of their owner’ s death[...]” (p. 41). Once again, UFOs as symbolic manifestations are not solely subjective experiences, but involve also some “participation” from unanimated matter. Based on Jung’s approach, it is certainly meaningful to consider UFOs as akin to dreams, as they are both symbolic manifestations of the unconscious. The real issue, in fact, is not ontological; individual dreams and social psi events share enough fundamental characteristics to be analyzed with the same methodology. The problem is epistemological; Jung did not apply a key principle of his own methodology when dealing with flying saucers.
Jung is abundantly clear about the issue that each individual is unique, and each dream is unique. Therefore, “it is plain foolishness to believe in ready-made systematic guides to dream interpretation, as if one could simply buy a reference book and look up a particular symbol. No dream symbol can be separated from the individual who dreams it, and there is no definite or straightforward interpretation of any dream. Each individual varies so much in the way that his unconscious complements or compensate his conscious mind that it is impossible to be sure how far dreams and their symbols can be classified at all” (p. 38). And one more, “the knowledge of human nature that I have accumulated in the course of 60 years of practical experience has taught me to consider each case as a new one in which, first of all, I have had to seek the individual approach. [...] Some cases demand one method and some another” (p. 55). And just to be sure, “the interpretation of dreams and symbols demands intelligence. It cannot be turned into a mechanical system and then cramped into unimaginative brains. It demands both an increasing knowledge of the dreamer’s individuality and an increasing self-awareness on the part of the interpreter”. (p. 81) I think Jung could not have been clearer: his methodology is fundamentally about a case-by-case approach.
In Flying Saucers, Jung simply did not do that. He actually did not use a case-by-case approach. If Jung had followed his own method, he would have put the American society (or a portion thereof) on the “couch”, and try to understand what was going on with this particular society, at this particular time. Concretely, he should have taken the time to look into the special symbolism unique to the 1947 UFO wave and then repeat for the 1952 one, and treat them as if they were two different dreams. Then, he should have taken a different approach with a different “patient” (i.e., France) and look into the particular symbolism of the 1954 wave, and treat as yet another “dream” to interpret. The same should have been done with the Brazilian UFO wave of the late 1950s. What Jung did, instead, is to seek directly the universal symbolism behind the flying saucer and try to develop a reference book for a particular symbol, contrary to his own prescription. Or to put it in the words of his collaborator Aniela Jaffé, “Jung has explained the UFOs as projection of a psychic content (of wholeness) that has at all times been symbolized by the circle. In other words, this ‘visionary rumor,’ as can also be seen in many dreams of our time, is an attempt by the unconscious collective psyche to heal the split in our apocalyptic age by means of the symbol of the circle”. (p. 285).
Jung should be celebrated for being the first one to understand that UFOs are directly linked to collective unconscious processes, but he should be fustigated for not following his own method. Like Lévy-Strauss, he produced a static and rigid interpretation of a manifestation of the socially shared unconscious, and in both cases it is (in my opinion) the main point of dissatisfaction found in the writings of these two great minds of the 20th century.
UFO and the concept of archetype
Jung rightfully claimed that his concept of archetype was often misunderstood (p. 57). Archetypes are unconscious emotional thought-patterns that have a “tendency to form such representations of a motif—representations that can vary a great deal in detail without losing their basic pattern” (p. 58). Furthermore, according to Jung “like the instincts, the collective thought patterns of the human mind are innate and inherited. They function, when the occasion arises, in more or less the same way in all of us. Emotional manifestations, to which such thought patterns belong, are recognizably the same all over the earth” (p. 64).
What this means is that in spite the fact that each dreamer and each dream are unique, they all share in common the activation of archetypes, and that each archetype has representational commonalities. The activation of an archetype is in turn linked to an imbalance between the conscious life of an individual and his/her unconscious one. Such imbalance is produced by events in the environment of the individual, and these events can be in the future (Jung gave an example of an archetype activated by a rationally unpredictable death that occurred 3 years later) (p. 66). In other words, for Jung the unconscious is working outside the “normal” flow of time.
For Jung, archetypes also operate at the social level, “but while personal complexes never produce more than a personal bias, archetypes create myths, religions, and philosophies that influence and characterize whole nations and epochs of history”. (p.68). It is probably the most problematic component of the concept of archetype. Historians and sociologists have convincingly refuted such a deterministic view of social reality. If there is something impossible to predict is social change. Yet, if one agrees with Jung, social change could be predicted because it is essentially a socially shared and inherited response mechanism to our environment. I think, once again Jung has not followed his method in developing the concept of archetype. Like in the case of individuals, societies might activate the same archetype when facing similar emotional challenges, but each response to such archetypical activation is unique and its ultimate outcome unpredictable. The more substantive argument here, I think, is that there is a fundamental indeterminacy linked to multiple unconscious interacting in a society, which does not exist at the individual level. In other words, the socially shared unconscious is much more dynamic and volatile because it is “fed” by thousands and millions of dynamic individual unconscious. From that point of view, to see in UFOs an archetypical circle, which interpretation is applied indiscriminately to every case is simply contrary to what Jung advocated. Jung, in fact, simply “turned into a mechanical system” his interpretation, and was rather unimaginative about it.
One can agree with Jung that when an archetype is activated, there is a lot of psychic energy in action (what he called numinosity) (p. 87), and by extension it is reasonable to think that psi events, including social psi events, are produced when an archetype is activated. Jung, particularly, interpreted synchronistic events as a sign of an archetype being activated (pp. 226-227). However, it is important to remember than even when a high level of emotional energy activates a particular thought-pattern (i.e. an archetype) the symbolic representation used by the unconscious can vary widely. I would even say that the same symbol (like a round UFO) can be used to express the activation of different archetypes (and I think that’s why Jung was prescribing so much caution in interpreting dreams and demanded to have an extensive knowledge of each dreamer) . Within societies, the meaning attached to each symbol is actually socially negotiated. For instance, the swastika, which is an old and widespread symbol, in Western countries is associated with the evil of the Nazi regime (death and destruction), while in India it is a positive religious symbol (continuity), and among Native American it is a positive and traditional symbol used to re-assert the Native culture (re-birth). Of course, one could say that in all these three instances it is about the “cycle of life”, but then one needs to ask about which part of the cycle? Thus, what is the usefulness of such interpretation if you do not have the context? Clearly, it is unwise to think that the presence of the same symbol means that the same archetype has been activated.
To stay within Jung’s timeframe, it is quite possible to see the 1947 UFO wave as an activation of survival fears (in the context of the USSR about to have the bomb); the 1952 wave as being linked to feeling of abandonment by the mother or parents (federal civil servants at the mercy of Senator MacCarthy—more on this on a future post); the 1954 wave as a lost of status within the tribe of powerful nations (France was just about to cease to be a colonial power); and the Brazilian wave of the late 1950s as the father becoming tyrannical (the emergence of a really bad military dictatorship in Brazil). Once again, all these four waves could be generalized as fears linked to safety, but then it becomes meaningless. Other societies in the same situation had a werewolf wave (France, a few years before the 1789 Revolution), mermaids (Israel in 2009), etc., which have nothing to do with circles. I think that round UFOs became in the 1950s a convenient symbol to grab attention, and it was unconsciously adopted by many societies in a context where it would be meaningful (i.e. beginning of the space age).
The ultimate conclusion that must be drawn for parasociology is that Jungian analysis, when transposed to the sociological level, must be adapted: the social unconscious selection of symbols (such as UFOs) must be understood based on the contextual capacity of a symbol to influence the collective consciousness. A symbol’s potential strength within a specific society, at a specific time of its history, is the key to interpretation rather than its presumed universal and timeless meaning. When a symbol becomes “institutionalized” then it will tend to repeat itself (hence we see UFOs since the last 60 years), and can be effectively described through Rupert Sheldrake’s concept of morphic fields (as discussed in a previous post). At the same time, I think symbolism in social psi events has also a declining effect because a symbol, when overused, loses its capacity to grab the attention of the collective consciousness. Such a declining effect at the individual level has been discovered a while ago by parapsychology (i.e. a same experiment produces lower psi results over time, as the individual unconscious gets bored and loses its focus).
Once again, Jung’s idea to look for activated archetypes to understand the emergence of UFO waves was simply brilliant. But Jung was no sociologist. At the social level, one symbol can reflect a vast array of archetypes. In other words, the symbolism directly linked to a psi event (like a round flying saucer) is not enough to understand the event. As Jung prescribed, there is nothing like developing “an increasing knowledge of the dreamer’s individuality and an increasing self-awareness on the part of the interpreter”.
Eric Ouellet © 2009
Showing posts with label Jung. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jung. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Monday, December 22, 2008
Reading Notes Various on Psi and the Collective Unconscious
Three articles from scholarly journals are reviewed. The three of them are linked, directly or indirectly to how psi phenomena and the notion of collective unconscious relate to each other. The three articles are:
Irwin, Lee. (1994). “Dreams, Theory, and Culture: The Plains vision quest paradigm”. American Indian Quarterly 18(2): 229-245.
Main, Roderick. (2006). “The Social Significance of Synchronicity”. Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society 11: 36-53.
Winkelman, Michael et al. (1982). “Magic: A theoretical reassessment”. Current Anthropology 23(1): 37-66.
Irwin’s article
This article is about the role that dreams play among Native Americans from the Plains and how dreams are integrated into their community. One of the key objectives of the author, however, is to integrate the explanation within a different framework than the one usually provided in Western psychology and science. Particularly, the author tries to avoid reducing the content of dreams to either the Freudian issue of repressed complexes, or to some sort of expression of Jungian rigid social archetypes. In other words, to understand Native people relationship to dreams, one has to step outside the usual Western ways of thinking. From this point of view, this article is interesting because it provides a different way of linking the individual’s unconscious and the collective unconscious, which can be useful to explain better psi events.
Irwin underlines that imagery (a key component of dreams) is an important element of any altered state of consciousness, and that it “has the capacity, unlike mental linguistic processes, to carry strong emotional intensity, linked with normally synthetic and integrative functions.” (p. 235) I am aware of other researches about symbolism, whereas symbols are understood as being fundamentally polysemic (having multiple meanings). The symbol’s capacity to carry knowledge (at several levels at the same time – emotional, moral, cognitive, chronological, etc) is much powerful than the linearity of rational language. It constitutes a different form of knowledge, and therefore requires an appropriate epistemology to capture fully all its richness. From that point of view, then, it is easier to understand that “for Native American visionaries, the vision cannot be accurately characterized as a purely psychological event or concept. Rather the vision is recognized as a form of encounter with mythically defined sources of personal empowerment and as a manifestation of the mysterious contents of a visionary world.” (p. 235). This is not that different from some Jungian psychologists who explain psi events as individuals accessing the collective unconscious, that they call the Absolute Knowledge. Remote viewing certainly fits this concept of Absolute Knowledge accessible to individuals.
Another point that author puts forward is that “in the Native American context, there is no separation between the world-as-dreamed and the world-as-lived. These are states integral to the unifying continuum of mythic description, narration, and enactment.” (p. 236). Then, Irwin underlines that in Western culture, there is a strict separation between the two. I am not sure it is so. To borrow from the anthropologist of science Bruno Latour book’s We Have Never Been Modern (Cambride: Harvard University Press, 2008) (originally written in French in 1997) this modern separation between the real and the fictional, between science and non-science, etc, exist mostly in the official discourse and in the academia. In the reality of ordinary Western people’s everyday life, such strict distinctions do not exist, or at least not with the same degree of force. Hence, I think that approaching the world-as-lived and the world-as-dreamed on continuum can be quite useful for assessing social psi events.
The key here is that these dreams are not only an individual’s affair. “Native American visions participate in a rich and vital process involving both creative transformation and cultural innovation as well as an affirmation of cultural continuity.” (p. 237) In other words, dreams are an expression of the imaginary, and this imaginary contributes to both cultural transformation and reinforcement of cultural patterns. Because “if the visionary dream expresses an awareness of a higher implicit order, then the explicit or manifest content of the dream would represent an ensemble or subtotality of the visionary order, particularly as embodied in dream images and objects. To enter the dream world means, in this sense, to alter consciousness and enter into an implicit dreaming order—the enfolded, psychic potential of the visionary dream—that has a structural, morphological effect on consciousness.” (p. 239)
It is a different way of expressing that the collective unconscious is both impacting the individual and impacted by individuals. The individual and collective unconscious cannot be reduced to one another, but they interact with each other through the language of symbolism, particularly when individuals are in an altered state of consciousness (such as dreaming). The question would then be: which conditions are more conducive for the collective unconscious to express itself (as it is a two-way construct)?
It is also interesting to see that the author explains the social role of dreams in a way that is reminiscent of von Lucadou’s model for poltergeists. “Members of a given community attain more powerful interpretive consistency through the continual generation of diverse interpretive frames. These frames emerge through the process of visionary experience and the subsequent integration of those experiences into unifying cultural enactments. This process allows for a fundamental pluralism at the heart of the organization of meaning in a dreaming culture and expresses a dialogical unfolding of implicit, potential forms of new or innovative order. [...] In the Native American context, the primary representation of unfolding new horizons of perception and awareness is through the manifestation of power, often as embodied in the use of dream objects.” (p.240)
In von Lucadou’s model, the focus person and the people in the environment discuss the poltergeist events and together develop interpretive frames to understand it. As the poltergeist continues to “act up” further interpretations confirming the first ones are put forward. Given that the frames are themselves symbolic by granting a status of living entity to the poltergeist, a pluralism of views about the same events can be generated without “damaging” the process of the unfolding poltergeist. When the so-called naive observes arrive, people who are sharing a paranormal culture oftentimes unknowingly, they integrate the events into a larger framework and thus provide further indeterminacy to the phenomenon (i.e., it becomes even more mysterious). It is only when the critical observers and the rest of the “Western society” gets involved that the indeterminacy is closed off by assigning a very narrow and specific meaning to the events (i.e., lies and hallucinations). In other words, the imaginary cannot act anymore.
It is yet another element indicating that the power of the imaginary is a key component of psi effects. Along the same line of thought, one can think about the book The Secret by Rhonda Byrne (Atria Books, 2006), which describes a process of altering one’s unconscious in believing that he/she deserves what he/she dreams about, and then imagine it happening. In a sense, it is a diffused form of psi, yet observable, created by using the imaginary. In this case, it is rather a series of synchronicity getting the right people, events and information in one’s path at the right time. As well, one can think of the famous Philip experiment (Iris M. Owen and Margaret Sparrow. Conjuring up Philip: An Adventure In Psychokinesis. Harper & Row, 1976) that through imagination, a group of psychic researchers “created” a spirit leading to psi effects (PK among other things).
Such imaginary should also act at the level of the collective unconscious. In 1947, people in the United States collectively were unconsciously imagining new horizons (maybe caused by the emerging Cold War and the emerging possibility of nuclear annihilation), and Kenneth Arnold unintentionally gave them an interpretative frame, at the right time. The unfolding of events can then be understood with a macro-level use of von Lucadou’s model: i.e. the naive observers (the ETH ufologists) can shield the internal portion of the phenomenon from the critical observers (the authorities and the pseudo-sceptics). Society, in this case, plays a different role than in the original model as it is not that sceptical, as Latour has shown. Society can actually reinforce the naive observers’ impact on the phenomenon rather that weakening it. I would also add that as the naive observers get organized in a “scientific” way, the phenomenon is reduced in its indeterminacy as the range of possibilities is also reduced. Strange objects become flying saucers; various aliens become Grays, etc. Yet, the imaginary power of the collective unconscious is never fully “controlled” and new forms appear like triangular alien ships. It is likely that the “canonical” list of alien entities put forward by MUFON and the like will just be blown up by new types of “entity sightings”. The imaginary power of the collective unconscious will be “unleashed” as people get unconsciously “bored” of the Greys. (This is a reasoned predictive statement, should it occur, parasociology will be in good shape!).
Main’s article
In this article, the author tries to show that Jung’s concept of synchronicity can be useful to social sciences. Although it is clear that Jung was preoccupied by the state of Western societies, in particular the problem of modernity and its associated issues of materialism, mass-mindedness and collective neurosis, his approach remains essentially reductionist. Main provides a quote from Jung that could not be clearer: “The collective consciousness gives way to the collective unconscious, which is entirely psychical, not social. The end point of individuation is a pure and intensely privatized self, liberated from all obligations imposed from without by the social order” (p. 37). As discussed in previous posts, the individual unconscious is built on and with the social realm. The unconscious is filled with language, symbols, social rules, etc., that can only be meaningful if there is a culture existing independently from the individuals. Hence, the collective unconscious is much better understood as a social object, independent from the individuals. As well, Main underlines that Jung does not see his archetypes, the key foundation of the collective unconscious, as being socially constructed. This is also another important problem in Jung’s approach. The actual content of the collective unconscious is important, not only the structure that may hold it.
Main, an expert of Jung’s writings, confirms what was already discussed in previous posts. However, there are some elements of Jung’s approach that can be made useful through lateral thinking. As Main states, “synchronicity is socially significant here in two senses: first, it is a form of occurrence that reverses the historical process according to which ‘the symbolical unity of spirit and matter fell apart, with that result that modern man finds himself uprooted and alienated in a de-souled world’; and second, it provides a framework for understanding the manner in which symbols compensating social crises may emerge into both private and public consciousness” (p. 45). This is certainly reminiscent of Irwin’s approach to Native American views where there is no sharp distinction between the world-as-lived and the world-as-dreamed. The collective unconscious, in its non-reductionist and non-archetypical version, can be construed as expressing itself through various means such as synchronicity. For instance, one can make a clear connection between this view of synchronicity and Michal Ginach’s analysis of what the Israeli society is unconsciously dreaming about, as discussed in a previous post. The collective actions of the State of Israel, by their timing and their acasual symbolic impact can be construed as a synchronistic way of granting its unconscious wishes.
It is also interesting to note that synchronicity is an expression of the imaginary. As Jung wrote (quoted in Main), “ ‘Meaning arises not from causality but from freedom, i.e., acausality [synchronicity]’. [...] The related quality of creativity, also much valued by Jung, is similarly affirmed insofar as ‘synchronicity represent a direct act of creation which manifests itself as chance’. “ (p. 46) Once again, one can make a link with Irwin’s idea that “in the Native American context, the primary representation of unfolding new horizons of perception and awareness is through the manifestation of power, often as embodied in the use of dream objects”, and Byrne’s key ideas found in The Secret. It is in situations of “free-play” that new meaning can be generated (and by extension synchronistic and psi-related events).
One can also find an unusual concept of social responsibility in Jung. Main quote Jung stating that “anyone who has insight into his own actions, and has thus found access to the unconscious, involuntarily exercises an influence on his environment” (p. 47). For Main “this outlook has far-reaching ethical implications, for it implies that the psychic states of one person, whether positive or negative, can synchronistically ‘affect’ the states or actions of others.” (p. 47). In plain language, it means that every one of us should be careful for what we wish for, as it can be realized through synchronicity.
This relates once more to Ginach’s analysis of the Israeli social unconscious of wishing to be victimized through war. But I would go one step further. If synchronicity is the observable psi effect of what we are wishing for, either as individual or as a collective, it appears also that what we are wishing for is to be found at different levels of unconscious depth. What I mean here is that someone may be more or less consciously wishing something and this may happen by synchronicity. But in the case of poltergeists, what is wished for is deeply buried and it is expressed through much more ostentatious forms of psi effects (i.e., uncontrollable psychokinesis). Drawing the parallel with the social unconscious, is it possible that UFO phenomena are also expressions, through psi effects, of deeply buried collective creative wishes or imaginary forms? I think there is a direct relationship between the unconscious depth of the imaginary and the intensity of a psi effect. As it is buried deeper, the human imaginary capabilities can be unleashed with greater freedom from the inherent limiting role of consciousness. From a methodological standpoint, this can create a serious problem. As one needs to look deeper into the collective unconscious, the more difficult it is to access and interpret it. However, the symbolic content of the social psi remains available, and can be used to trace back some of imaginary processes at play.
For instance, someone pointed out to me an unusual UFO sighting that occurred on 24 October 2008 near Empire, Ohio. After some further thinking, I can see that there is a symbolic element to it. The key witness is quoted saying that: "When I saw it, I was trying to take everything in and that's immediately what I thought when I saw it – that it was organic. That's the feeling that I got. I didn't think it could be anything else. It just came across as something organic" (see link above). Empire, Ohio is not far from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the University of Pittsburgh is actively engaged in a range of leading-edge biological research, including sponsoring a research centre on fighting bio-terrorism. Could it be that the witnesses saw a gigantic virus, as an expression of some deeply buried collective and unconscious fears and maybe premonitions? This is speculation, of course, but should a major viral issue emerge in the near future (like finding a highly contagious strain of the dreaded avian flu) and that the University of Pittsburgh would be somehow involved in such finding, this would constitute another reasoned predictive statement based on parasociology.
Winkleman’s article
This is an older article dating back to 1982. However, it is useful as it provides an interesting comparison between magic and psi, in the context of anthropological research. Winkleman provides a long list of anthropologists who studied magical rituals and observed what we would call psi effects. He identifies a series of common enablers between magic and psi, to include altered states of consciousness, visualisation (i.e., belief that the desired effect can be produced), positive expectations (i.e., disbelievers negatively impact the possibility of producing psi effects), and belief (general belief in a community about the existence of magic). These findings remain valid today.
One of the key differences, however, is that magic is construed as mana, emanating from non-human sources. “Psi lacks spirit, god, and personalized conceptions; it is characterized almost exclusively as an impersonal force, akin to electromagnetic energy. [But] both are used to refer to a non-physical power operating outside the known physical laws or normal courses of nature and outside of normal space-time constraints. Both are at once means of action and milieux as well as fundamental processes of nature.” (p. 39)
The author makes an indirect link with the notion of imaginary (i.e., as unbounded possibilities) when he compares how PK and magic are understood. “Mauss characterizes magical acts as placing objects or beings ‘in a state so that certain movements, accidents, or phenomena will inevitably occur’ or bringing them in a dangerous state; he emphasizes the role of chance and the necessarily indeterminate nature of the outcome” (p. 39). Then Winkelman states that “one of the principal early findings of PK research was that systems with a greater degree of randomness were more easily influenced [...] and that ‘changes in the state of the physical system may in some sense be opportunities for PK influence to occur’”(p. 40). This is an interesting statement as balls of light, and other plasma-related phenomena are actually objects in unstable physical conditions. Hence, I would say that balls of light are both enablers and carrier of psi effects, expressed in our modern days in the form of UFOs and alien ships.
Another important linkage between both magic and psi is the role of emotional bursts. “Spontaneous paranormal experiences generally occur during dreams, in response to strong emotional experiences of others, particularly accident of death, and between members of the same family or close friends” (p. 40). Winkleman adds that parapsychology found that the same process occurs with poltergeists phenomena, and during events of psychotic breaks or crisis. Then, he mentions that “Malinovski suggests that magic arises from spontaneous ideas and reactions when the rational processes and known means of resolving problems have been exhausted; this implicates unconscious (or primary) thought processes as basic to magic” (p. 40). Once again, there are good reasons to think that spontaneous psi effects, like UFO and UFO waves, should be related to some strong emotional tensions.
The author tries to develop a different perspective about magic, and in particular he tries not to explain magic as simply a ritualized expression of social forms, which is the common anthropological view of magic. And this is the other side of reductionism, i.e., individual thought and beliefs are reduced to social forms and social constructs implicitly imposing themselves to all. He does not attempt to introduce concepts such as the collective unconscious, but he nevertheless proposes that the “destruction of traditional social systems with the worldwide advance of industrial society has destroyed many magical systems, but numerous practices survive and require investigation to determine their possible empirical and experiential base” (p. 44). In a way, a collective unconscious that is conducive to psi-effect is a key enabler. As there are UFO sightings on a regular basis, and UFO waves at various intervals, one can think that there must be a social system supporting the phenomena. The ETH community is in a way a magical system, but a magical system “twisted” or adapted to our time, as it ascribes a technical and materialistic reality to something for which no positive proof exists of its material “nut and bolts” reality. As well, like the mana of magic, the origins of the phenomenon are assigned to n on-human entities (either ETs or inter-dimensional beings). The magical community, however, does not have to be the “focus person” to use von Lucadou’s model, but rather the “naive observers” shielding the inner system from the critical observers.
Break for the Holiday Season
I will take a break for the Holiday Season, with my next post in early to mid-January.
Santa is supposed to deliver some more good books for me. So there is more to come.
I wish you all a Good Holiday Season and a Happy New Year (and remember wishes might be more powerful than we think...)
Copyright © 2008 Eric Ouellet
Irwin, Lee. (1994). “Dreams, Theory, and Culture: The Plains vision quest paradigm”. American Indian Quarterly 18(2): 229-245.
Main, Roderick. (2006). “The Social Significance of Synchronicity”. Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society 11: 36-53.
Winkelman, Michael et al. (1982). “Magic: A theoretical reassessment”. Current Anthropology 23(1): 37-66.
Irwin’s article
This article is about the role that dreams play among Native Americans from the Plains and how dreams are integrated into their community. One of the key objectives of the author, however, is to integrate the explanation within a different framework than the one usually provided in Western psychology and science. Particularly, the author tries to avoid reducing the content of dreams to either the Freudian issue of repressed complexes, or to some sort of expression of Jungian rigid social archetypes. In other words, to understand Native people relationship to dreams, one has to step outside the usual Western ways of thinking. From this point of view, this article is interesting because it provides a different way of linking the individual’s unconscious and the collective unconscious, which can be useful to explain better psi events.
Irwin underlines that imagery (a key component of dreams) is an important element of any altered state of consciousness, and that it “has the capacity, unlike mental linguistic processes, to carry strong emotional intensity, linked with normally synthetic and integrative functions.” (p. 235) I am aware of other researches about symbolism, whereas symbols are understood as being fundamentally polysemic (having multiple meanings). The symbol’s capacity to carry knowledge (at several levels at the same time – emotional, moral, cognitive, chronological, etc) is much powerful than the linearity of rational language. It constitutes a different form of knowledge, and therefore requires an appropriate epistemology to capture fully all its richness. From that point of view, then, it is easier to understand that “for Native American visionaries, the vision cannot be accurately characterized as a purely psychological event or concept. Rather the vision is recognized as a form of encounter with mythically defined sources of personal empowerment and as a manifestation of the mysterious contents of a visionary world.” (p. 235). This is not that different from some Jungian psychologists who explain psi events as individuals accessing the collective unconscious, that they call the Absolute Knowledge. Remote viewing certainly fits this concept of Absolute Knowledge accessible to individuals.
Another point that author puts forward is that “in the Native American context, there is no separation between the world-as-dreamed and the world-as-lived. These are states integral to the unifying continuum of mythic description, narration, and enactment.” (p. 236). Then, Irwin underlines that in Western culture, there is a strict separation between the two. I am not sure it is so. To borrow from the anthropologist of science Bruno Latour book’s We Have Never Been Modern (Cambride: Harvard University Press, 2008) (originally written in French in 1997) this modern separation between the real and the fictional, between science and non-science, etc, exist mostly in the official discourse and in the academia. In the reality of ordinary Western people’s everyday life, such strict distinctions do not exist, or at least not with the same degree of force. Hence, I think that approaching the world-as-lived and the world-as-dreamed on continuum can be quite useful for assessing social psi events.
The key here is that these dreams are not only an individual’s affair. “Native American visions participate in a rich and vital process involving both creative transformation and cultural innovation as well as an affirmation of cultural continuity.” (p. 237) In other words, dreams are an expression of the imaginary, and this imaginary contributes to both cultural transformation and reinforcement of cultural patterns. Because “if the visionary dream expresses an awareness of a higher implicit order, then the explicit or manifest content of the dream would represent an ensemble or subtotality of the visionary order, particularly as embodied in dream images and objects. To enter the dream world means, in this sense, to alter consciousness and enter into an implicit dreaming order—the enfolded, psychic potential of the visionary dream—that has a structural, morphological effect on consciousness.” (p. 239)
It is a different way of expressing that the collective unconscious is both impacting the individual and impacted by individuals. The individual and collective unconscious cannot be reduced to one another, but they interact with each other through the language of symbolism, particularly when individuals are in an altered state of consciousness (such as dreaming). The question would then be: which conditions are more conducive for the collective unconscious to express itself (as it is a two-way construct)?
It is also interesting to see that the author explains the social role of dreams in a way that is reminiscent of von Lucadou’s model for poltergeists. “Members of a given community attain more powerful interpretive consistency through the continual generation of diverse interpretive frames. These frames emerge through the process of visionary experience and the subsequent integration of those experiences into unifying cultural enactments. This process allows for a fundamental pluralism at the heart of the organization of meaning in a dreaming culture and expresses a dialogical unfolding of implicit, potential forms of new or innovative order. [...] In the Native American context, the primary representation of unfolding new horizons of perception and awareness is through the manifestation of power, often as embodied in the use of dream objects.” (p.240)
In von Lucadou’s model, the focus person and the people in the environment discuss the poltergeist events and together develop interpretive frames to understand it. As the poltergeist continues to “act up” further interpretations confirming the first ones are put forward. Given that the frames are themselves symbolic by granting a status of living entity to the poltergeist, a pluralism of views about the same events can be generated without “damaging” the process of the unfolding poltergeist. When the so-called naive observes arrive, people who are sharing a paranormal culture oftentimes unknowingly, they integrate the events into a larger framework and thus provide further indeterminacy to the phenomenon (i.e., it becomes even more mysterious). It is only when the critical observers and the rest of the “Western society” gets involved that the indeterminacy is closed off by assigning a very narrow and specific meaning to the events (i.e., lies and hallucinations). In other words, the imaginary cannot act anymore.
It is yet another element indicating that the power of the imaginary is a key component of psi effects. Along the same line of thought, one can think about the book The Secret by Rhonda Byrne (Atria Books, 2006), which describes a process of altering one’s unconscious in believing that he/she deserves what he/she dreams about, and then imagine it happening. In a sense, it is a diffused form of psi, yet observable, created by using the imaginary. In this case, it is rather a series of synchronicity getting the right people, events and information in one’s path at the right time. As well, one can think of the famous Philip experiment (Iris M. Owen and Margaret Sparrow. Conjuring up Philip: An Adventure In Psychokinesis. Harper & Row, 1976) that through imagination, a group of psychic researchers “created” a spirit leading to psi effects (PK among other things).
Such imaginary should also act at the level of the collective unconscious. In 1947, people in the United States collectively were unconsciously imagining new horizons (maybe caused by the emerging Cold War and the emerging possibility of nuclear annihilation), and Kenneth Arnold unintentionally gave them an interpretative frame, at the right time. The unfolding of events can then be understood with a macro-level use of von Lucadou’s model: i.e. the naive observers (the ETH ufologists) can shield the internal portion of the phenomenon from the critical observers (the authorities and the pseudo-sceptics). Society, in this case, plays a different role than in the original model as it is not that sceptical, as Latour has shown. Society can actually reinforce the naive observers’ impact on the phenomenon rather that weakening it. I would also add that as the naive observers get organized in a “scientific” way, the phenomenon is reduced in its indeterminacy as the range of possibilities is also reduced. Strange objects become flying saucers; various aliens become Grays, etc. Yet, the imaginary power of the collective unconscious is never fully “controlled” and new forms appear like triangular alien ships. It is likely that the “canonical” list of alien entities put forward by MUFON and the like will just be blown up by new types of “entity sightings”. The imaginary power of the collective unconscious will be “unleashed” as people get unconsciously “bored” of the Greys. (This is a reasoned predictive statement, should it occur, parasociology will be in good shape!).
Main’s article
In this article, the author tries to show that Jung’s concept of synchronicity can be useful to social sciences. Although it is clear that Jung was preoccupied by the state of Western societies, in particular the problem of modernity and its associated issues of materialism, mass-mindedness and collective neurosis, his approach remains essentially reductionist. Main provides a quote from Jung that could not be clearer: “The collective consciousness gives way to the collective unconscious, which is entirely psychical, not social. The end point of individuation is a pure and intensely privatized self, liberated from all obligations imposed from without by the social order” (p. 37). As discussed in previous posts, the individual unconscious is built on and with the social realm. The unconscious is filled with language, symbols, social rules, etc., that can only be meaningful if there is a culture existing independently from the individuals. Hence, the collective unconscious is much better understood as a social object, independent from the individuals. As well, Main underlines that Jung does not see his archetypes, the key foundation of the collective unconscious, as being socially constructed. This is also another important problem in Jung’s approach. The actual content of the collective unconscious is important, not only the structure that may hold it.
Main, an expert of Jung’s writings, confirms what was already discussed in previous posts. However, there are some elements of Jung’s approach that can be made useful through lateral thinking. As Main states, “synchronicity is socially significant here in two senses: first, it is a form of occurrence that reverses the historical process according to which ‘the symbolical unity of spirit and matter fell apart, with that result that modern man finds himself uprooted and alienated in a de-souled world’; and second, it provides a framework for understanding the manner in which symbols compensating social crises may emerge into both private and public consciousness” (p. 45). This is certainly reminiscent of Irwin’s approach to Native American views where there is no sharp distinction between the world-as-lived and the world-as-dreamed. The collective unconscious, in its non-reductionist and non-archetypical version, can be construed as expressing itself through various means such as synchronicity. For instance, one can make a clear connection between this view of synchronicity and Michal Ginach’s analysis of what the Israeli society is unconsciously dreaming about, as discussed in a previous post. The collective actions of the State of Israel, by their timing and their acasual symbolic impact can be construed as a synchronistic way of granting its unconscious wishes.
It is also interesting to note that synchronicity is an expression of the imaginary. As Jung wrote (quoted in Main), “ ‘Meaning arises not from causality but from freedom, i.e., acausality [synchronicity]’. [...] The related quality of creativity, also much valued by Jung, is similarly affirmed insofar as ‘synchronicity represent a direct act of creation which manifests itself as chance’. “ (p. 46) Once again, one can make a link with Irwin’s idea that “in the Native American context, the primary representation of unfolding new horizons of perception and awareness is through the manifestation of power, often as embodied in the use of dream objects”, and Byrne’s key ideas found in The Secret. It is in situations of “free-play” that new meaning can be generated (and by extension synchronistic and psi-related events).
One can also find an unusual concept of social responsibility in Jung. Main quote Jung stating that “anyone who has insight into his own actions, and has thus found access to the unconscious, involuntarily exercises an influence on his environment” (p. 47). For Main “this outlook has far-reaching ethical implications, for it implies that the psychic states of one person, whether positive or negative, can synchronistically ‘affect’ the states or actions of others.” (p. 47). In plain language, it means that every one of us should be careful for what we wish for, as it can be realized through synchronicity.
This relates once more to Ginach’s analysis of the Israeli social unconscious of wishing to be victimized through war. But I would go one step further. If synchronicity is the observable psi effect of what we are wishing for, either as individual or as a collective, it appears also that what we are wishing for is to be found at different levels of unconscious depth. What I mean here is that someone may be more or less consciously wishing something and this may happen by synchronicity. But in the case of poltergeists, what is wished for is deeply buried and it is expressed through much more ostentatious forms of psi effects (i.e., uncontrollable psychokinesis). Drawing the parallel with the social unconscious, is it possible that UFO phenomena are also expressions, through psi effects, of deeply buried collective creative wishes or imaginary forms? I think there is a direct relationship between the unconscious depth of the imaginary and the intensity of a psi effect. As it is buried deeper, the human imaginary capabilities can be unleashed with greater freedom from the inherent limiting role of consciousness. From a methodological standpoint, this can create a serious problem. As one needs to look deeper into the collective unconscious, the more difficult it is to access and interpret it. However, the symbolic content of the social psi remains available, and can be used to trace back some of imaginary processes at play.
For instance, someone pointed out to me an unusual UFO sighting that occurred on 24 October 2008 near Empire, Ohio. After some further thinking, I can see that there is a symbolic element to it. The key witness is quoted saying that: "When I saw it, I was trying to take everything in and that's immediately what I thought when I saw it – that it was organic. That's the feeling that I got. I didn't think it could be anything else. It just came across as something organic" (see link above). Empire, Ohio is not far from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the University of Pittsburgh is actively engaged in a range of leading-edge biological research, including sponsoring a research centre on fighting bio-terrorism. Could it be that the witnesses saw a gigantic virus, as an expression of some deeply buried collective and unconscious fears and maybe premonitions? This is speculation, of course, but should a major viral issue emerge in the near future (like finding a highly contagious strain of the dreaded avian flu) and that the University of Pittsburgh would be somehow involved in such finding, this would constitute another reasoned predictive statement based on parasociology.
Winkleman’s article
This is an older article dating back to 1982. However, it is useful as it provides an interesting comparison between magic and psi, in the context of anthropological research. Winkleman provides a long list of anthropologists who studied magical rituals and observed what we would call psi effects. He identifies a series of common enablers between magic and psi, to include altered states of consciousness, visualisation (i.e., belief that the desired effect can be produced), positive expectations (i.e., disbelievers negatively impact the possibility of producing psi effects), and belief (general belief in a community about the existence of magic). These findings remain valid today.
One of the key differences, however, is that magic is construed as mana, emanating from non-human sources. “Psi lacks spirit, god, and personalized conceptions; it is characterized almost exclusively as an impersonal force, akin to electromagnetic energy. [But] both are used to refer to a non-physical power operating outside the known physical laws or normal courses of nature and outside of normal space-time constraints. Both are at once means of action and milieux as well as fundamental processes of nature.” (p. 39)
The author makes an indirect link with the notion of imaginary (i.e., as unbounded possibilities) when he compares how PK and magic are understood. “Mauss characterizes magical acts as placing objects or beings ‘in a state so that certain movements, accidents, or phenomena will inevitably occur’ or bringing them in a dangerous state; he emphasizes the role of chance and the necessarily indeterminate nature of the outcome” (p. 39). Then Winkelman states that “one of the principal early findings of PK research was that systems with a greater degree of randomness were more easily influenced [...] and that ‘changes in the state of the physical system may in some sense be opportunities for PK influence to occur’”(p. 40). This is an interesting statement as balls of light, and other plasma-related phenomena are actually objects in unstable physical conditions. Hence, I would say that balls of light are both enablers and carrier of psi effects, expressed in our modern days in the form of UFOs and alien ships.
Another important linkage between both magic and psi is the role of emotional bursts. “Spontaneous paranormal experiences generally occur during dreams, in response to strong emotional experiences of others, particularly accident of death, and between members of the same family or close friends” (p. 40). Winkleman adds that parapsychology found that the same process occurs with poltergeists phenomena, and during events of psychotic breaks or crisis. Then, he mentions that “Malinovski suggests that magic arises from spontaneous ideas and reactions when the rational processes and known means of resolving problems have been exhausted; this implicates unconscious (or primary) thought processes as basic to magic” (p. 40). Once again, there are good reasons to think that spontaneous psi effects, like UFO and UFO waves, should be related to some strong emotional tensions.
The author tries to develop a different perspective about magic, and in particular he tries not to explain magic as simply a ritualized expression of social forms, which is the common anthropological view of magic. And this is the other side of reductionism, i.e., individual thought and beliefs are reduced to social forms and social constructs implicitly imposing themselves to all. He does not attempt to introduce concepts such as the collective unconscious, but he nevertheless proposes that the “destruction of traditional social systems with the worldwide advance of industrial society has destroyed many magical systems, but numerous practices survive and require investigation to determine their possible empirical and experiential base” (p. 44). In a way, a collective unconscious that is conducive to psi-effect is a key enabler. As there are UFO sightings on a regular basis, and UFO waves at various intervals, one can think that there must be a social system supporting the phenomena. The ETH community is in a way a magical system, but a magical system “twisted” or adapted to our time, as it ascribes a technical and materialistic reality to something for which no positive proof exists of its material “nut and bolts” reality. As well, like the mana of magic, the origins of the phenomenon are assigned to n on-human entities (either ETs or inter-dimensional beings). The magical community, however, does not have to be the “focus person” to use von Lucadou’s model, but rather the “naive observers” shielding the inner system from the critical observers.
Break for the Holiday Season
I will take a break for the Holiday Season, with my next post in early to mid-January.
Santa is supposed to deliver some more good books for me. So there is more to come.
I wish you all a Good Holiday Season and a Happy New Year (and remember wishes might be more powerful than we think...)
Copyright © 2008 Eric Ouellet
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
UFO Waves and Collective Unconscious
As discussed in several previous posts, one of the keys to link parapsychology to sociology is the concept of collective unconscious. It is a key because the genesis of psi effects is in the unconscious mind, according to parapsychologists. The question is therefore: is there an equivalent at the collective level? Two of the founders of modern psychology, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, developed a number of ideas about what they call the collective unconscious. Their respective views are very much in line with how then regard the individual unconscious.
Freud and the dark side of the unconscious
For Freud, the unconscious is the place where all the frustrations are stored as an individual learns to live within the rules of his/her society. The unconscious is not a nice place. At the collective level, if one follows Freud, the collective unconscious is where bad stuff emerges. The rise of Nazi Germany was oftentimes interpreted as this irrational projection of collective frustrations towards others. I my opinion Freud holds the key on the scary part of paranormal events. More on this later. For a quick overview of Freud’s ideas on the issue of collective unconscious please refer to this exhibit website.
Jung, non-locality, and synchronicity
Carl Jung, on the other hand, had a broader understanding of the unconscious. For him, everything that was not in the domain of the conscious was in the unconscious, good and bad. Jung, however, was also very interested in studying paranormal phenomena, and he was the first to see a link between the unconscious mind and the psi effects (although he did not used the word psi). For him, the existence of paranormal events had to be explained by something greater than simply individual’s unconscious mind. It is in this context that he developed the idea of the collective unconscious where individual minds are connected to one another. This connection was done through fundamental archetypes (symbolized thought-forms) that are supposedly hard wired in the human brain. This idea of universally shared archetypes (and he did extensive research to find them in Eastern and Western esoterica) was also coupled with research in quantum physics and the idea of non-locality (in quantum physics it is accepted that related simultaneous events can occur without having a cause-and-effect to explain them), through his work with physicist Wolfgang Pauli. In this context, Jung saw the possibility to have meaning full conjunctions of events that have no direct cause-and-effect, which he called synchronicity. For him, synchronicity could provide an explanation for telepathy, but also for clairvoyance and premonition. For Jung, the unconscious mind is to be understood within the realm of emotions, which do not know time limitations (i.e., a feeling is something that remains in spite of time – people forget, or redefine experiences, but feelings do not change when they are brought back to consciousness – anyone who had a traumatic experience can confirm that). The possibility that also feelings transcend materiality was proposed by Jung to explain psychokinetic effects as well. Following the same logic, for Jung hauntings were therefore synchronistic events where subjective elements are mixed with objective effects out of the unconscious. In other words, when there are too many synchronistic events, which source can be either natural or psi-related (like the wind opening a door, while there is an electrical short-circuits), they constitute a larger meaningful event without having internal direct cause-and-effect relationships. For Jung, it is what we call haunting, but it does not imply the involvement of non-human entities.
The best source on this is: Main, Roderick. (1997). Jung on Synchronicity and the Paranormal. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jung and UFOs
Given Jung’s interest in the paranormal, it is no surprise that he also wrote about UFOs. This can be found in his famous book: Flying Saucers: A modern myth of things seen in the sky. Jung remained faithful to his approach and saw in UFOs an archetypical symbol that was made more modern through a “rumour” alleging that UFOs might be spaceships. He did not exclude the possibility that UFOs could be a collective hallucination that had a degree of objectivity through some sort psi process (very much in the same way he understood hauntings). However, he was more at pain to explain the physical dimension of the phenomena. Jung wrote in Flying Saucers (1978 edition) that an
“[...] alternative hypothesis [to anti-gravity] that Ufos are something psychic that is endow with certain physical properties seems less probable, for where should such a thing come from? If weightlessness is a hard proposition to swallow, then the notion of a materialized psychism opens a bottomless void under our feet. Parapsychology is, of course, acquainted with the fact of materialization. But this phenomenon depends on the presence of one or more mediums who exude a weighable substance, and it occur only in their immediate vicinity. The psyche can move the body, but only inside the living organism. That something psychic, possessing material qualities and with a high charge of energy, could appear by itself high in the air at a great distance from any human mediums—this surpasses our comprehension.” (p. 110).
I think Jung was on the right track for the most part, but given the way he construed the collective unconscious he could not think beyond the level ofthe individual (clearly seen here by focussing on individual mediums). Jung was a psychologist and it is no surprise that he focussed on the individual. His construction of the collective is reductionist as it brings back the entire concept to the individual. What is needed here is to rethink the collective unconscious as a collective level or sociological concept, without being reductionist.
A sociological understanding of the collective unconscious
Jung was criticized also for reducing to an almost biological level the content of archetypes. The notion that somehow specific content is hard wired in the human brain remains to be proven, and as far as we understand human behaviour, biological reductionism does not hold water very well. I think that it is possible to develop an understanding of somewhat predictable patterns for the unconscious (I would not use scientific law here as it is too strong), while what is populating the unconscious could be kept open and dynamic.
One of the first steps to conceptualize the collective unconscious in a sociological way is to go back to the roots of the concept. For this, I use an interesting article, where one can find the sources of what I discuss below. Greenwood, Susan F. (1990). “Émile Durkheim and C.G. Jung: Structuring a transpersonal sociology of religion.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 29(4): 482-495.
Interestingly, Jung’s collective unconscious and the founder of sociology’s (Durkheim) concept of collective consciousness have actually the same origin. For instance, Durkheim used the concept of collective representations to investigate the content of collective consciousness. He borrowed this concept from the French anthropologist Lucien Lévy-Bruhl (1857-1939). Jung acknowledged that his concept of archetype and Lévy-Bruhl’s concept of collective representation are the same thing. This means that conceptually collective representations are pathways for both the collective consciousness and unconscious. This was implicitly noted by many sociologists, as Durkheim’s concept of collective consciousness, when used in its French original version “conscience collective” creates an ambiguity that he found useful. The word “conscience” in French can mean either consciousness or conscience in English. As Durkheim voluntarily kept the idea of conscience as part of his concept, this leaves the door open to the possibility of an unconscious collective mind as well.
From Greenwood’s article (p. 488), here is some explanation about both concepts:
While for Jung, (p. 489),
Another quote shows how much Durkheim and Jung have in common. But I would to highlight that a sociological unconscious, as Durkheim noted, is a “partially autonomous reality” that is feeds through a “multitude of minds.”
Hence, if we give a Durkheimian turn to Jung’s concept, then collective representations and symbols that open the doors to the collective unconscious may have a long duration across generations, but they do not have to be hard wired through an archetypical approach. The second point is that Durkheim provides a truly sociological perspective in considering the collective unconscious as autonomous from the individuals, and thus avoids reductionism.
All this does not prove anything about the paranormal and UFO waves, but it shows that at least an autonomous and social dynamic collective unconscious is thinkable and has some basis in sociological theory.
To go back to Jung and UFOs, then it is thinkable that a large group act unknowingly as a medium, and could produce psi effect like materialization at a certain distance. The distance might remain somewhat of a limiting factor, and this may explain the existence of UFO waves, which are by definition localized. Furthermore, the psi-effect might have a degree of autonomy from individuals as it is the outcome of a multitude of minds unconsciously feeling at the same time. UFO waves are also known to move away from the original epicentre (it moved from West to East during the Airship wave of 1896-97, it moved also West to East during the 1954 French wave).
Copyright © 2008 Eric Ouellet
Freud and the dark side of the unconscious
For Freud, the unconscious is the place where all the frustrations are stored as an individual learns to live within the rules of his/her society. The unconscious is not a nice place. At the collective level, if one follows Freud, the collective unconscious is where bad stuff emerges. The rise of Nazi Germany was oftentimes interpreted as this irrational projection of collective frustrations towards others. I my opinion Freud holds the key on the scary part of paranormal events. More on this later. For a quick overview of Freud’s ideas on the issue of collective unconscious please refer to this exhibit website.
Jung, non-locality, and synchronicity
Carl Jung, on the other hand, had a broader understanding of the unconscious. For him, everything that was not in the domain of the conscious was in the unconscious, good and bad. Jung, however, was also very interested in studying paranormal phenomena, and he was the first to see a link between the unconscious mind and the psi effects (although he did not used the word psi). For him, the existence of paranormal events had to be explained by something greater than simply individual’s unconscious mind. It is in this context that he developed the idea of the collective unconscious where individual minds are connected to one another. This connection was done through fundamental archetypes (symbolized thought-forms) that are supposedly hard wired in the human brain. This idea of universally shared archetypes (and he did extensive research to find them in Eastern and Western esoterica) was also coupled with research in quantum physics and the idea of non-locality (in quantum physics it is accepted that related simultaneous events can occur without having a cause-and-effect to explain them), through his work with physicist Wolfgang Pauli. In this context, Jung saw the possibility to have meaning full conjunctions of events that have no direct cause-and-effect, which he called synchronicity. For him, synchronicity could provide an explanation for telepathy, but also for clairvoyance and premonition. For Jung, the unconscious mind is to be understood within the realm of emotions, which do not know time limitations (i.e., a feeling is something that remains in spite of time – people forget, or redefine experiences, but feelings do not change when they are brought back to consciousness – anyone who had a traumatic experience can confirm that). The possibility that also feelings transcend materiality was proposed by Jung to explain psychokinetic effects as well. Following the same logic, for Jung hauntings were therefore synchronistic events where subjective elements are mixed with objective effects out of the unconscious. In other words, when there are too many synchronistic events, which source can be either natural or psi-related (like the wind opening a door, while there is an electrical short-circuits), they constitute a larger meaningful event without having internal direct cause-and-effect relationships. For Jung, it is what we call haunting, but it does not imply the involvement of non-human entities.
The best source on this is: Main, Roderick. (1997). Jung on Synchronicity and the Paranormal. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jung and UFOs
Given Jung’s interest in the paranormal, it is no surprise that he also wrote about UFOs. This can be found in his famous book: Flying Saucers: A modern myth of things seen in the sky. Jung remained faithful to his approach and saw in UFOs an archetypical symbol that was made more modern through a “rumour” alleging that UFOs might be spaceships. He did not exclude the possibility that UFOs could be a collective hallucination that had a degree of objectivity through some sort psi process (very much in the same way he understood hauntings). However, he was more at pain to explain the physical dimension of the phenomena. Jung wrote in Flying Saucers (1978 edition) that an
“[...] alternative hypothesis [to anti-gravity] that Ufos are something psychic that is endow with certain physical properties seems less probable, for where should such a thing come from? If weightlessness is a hard proposition to swallow, then the notion of a materialized psychism opens a bottomless void under our feet. Parapsychology is, of course, acquainted with the fact of materialization. But this phenomenon depends on the presence of one or more mediums who exude a weighable substance, and it occur only in their immediate vicinity. The psyche can move the body, but only inside the living organism. That something psychic, possessing material qualities and with a high charge of energy, could appear by itself high in the air at a great distance from any human mediums—this surpasses our comprehension.” (p. 110).
I think Jung was on the right track for the most part, but given the way he construed the collective unconscious he could not think beyond the level ofthe individual (clearly seen here by focussing on individual mediums). Jung was a psychologist and it is no surprise that he focussed on the individual. His construction of the collective is reductionist as it brings back the entire concept to the individual. What is needed here is to rethink the collective unconscious as a collective level or sociological concept, without being reductionist.
A sociological understanding of the collective unconscious
Jung was criticized also for reducing to an almost biological level the content of archetypes. The notion that somehow specific content is hard wired in the human brain remains to be proven, and as far as we understand human behaviour, biological reductionism does not hold water very well. I think that it is possible to develop an understanding of somewhat predictable patterns for the unconscious (I would not use scientific law here as it is too strong), while what is populating the unconscious could be kept open and dynamic.
One of the first steps to conceptualize the collective unconscious in a sociological way is to go back to the roots of the concept. For this, I use an interesting article, where one can find the sources of what I discuss below. Greenwood, Susan F. (1990). “Émile Durkheim and C.G. Jung: Structuring a transpersonal sociology of religion.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 29(4): 482-495.
Interestingly, Jung’s collective unconscious and the founder of sociology’s (Durkheim) concept of collective consciousness have actually the same origin. For instance, Durkheim used the concept of collective representations to investigate the content of collective consciousness. He borrowed this concept from the French anthropologist Lucien Lévy-Bruhl (1857-1939). Jung acknowledged that his concept of archetype and Lévy-Bruhl’s concept of collective representation are the same thing. This means that conceptually collective representations are pathways for both the collective consciousness and unconscious. This was implicitly noted by many sociologists, as Durkheim’s concept of collective consciousness, when used in its French original version “conscience collective” creates an ambiguity that he found useful. The word “conscience” in French can mean either consciousness or conscience in English. As Durkheim voluntarily kept the idea of conscience as part of his concept, this leaves the door open to the possibility of an unconscious collective mind as well.
From Greenwood’s article (p. 488), here is some explanation about both concepts:
While for Jung, (p. 489),
Another quote shows how much Durkheim and Jung have in common. But I would to highlight that a sociological unconscious, as Durkheim noted, is a “partially autonomous reality” that is feeds through a “multitude of minds.”
Hence, if we give a Durkheimian turn to Jung’s concept, then collective representations and symbols that open the doors to the collective unconscious may have a long duration across generations, but they do not have to be hard wired through an archetypical approach. The second point is that Durkheim provides a truly sociological perspective in considering the collective unconscious as autonomous from the individuals, and thus avoids reductionism.
All this does not prove anything about the paranormal and UFO waves, but it shows that at least an autonomous and social dynamic collective unconscious is thinkable and has some basis in sociological theory.
To go back to Jung and UFOs, then it is thinkable that a large group act unknowingly as a medium, and could produce psi effect like materialization at a certain distance. The distance might remain somewhat of a limiting factor, and this may explain the existence of UFO waves, which are by definition localized. Furthermore, the psi-effect might have a degree of autonomy from individuals as it is the outcome of a multitude of minds unconsciously feeling at the same time. UFO waves are also known to move away from the original epicentre (it moved from West to East during the Airship wave of 1896-97, it moved also West to East during the 1954 French wave).
Copyright © 2008 Eric Ouellet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)