In Jungian psychology there is no right or wrong, it’s always “what’s right for you?” Honesty can be a good thing for someone else, but maybe you need to learn protective deception. Being goal oriented can be a good thing but maybe you need to learn to relax and let go. Or vice versa.
Marie-Louise von Franz said that, in fairy tales, there are no consistent rules. Sometimes you must lie, and sometimes you get punished for lying. Sometimes the hard worker gets rewarded, and sometimes it’s the village idiot who does nothing but sit around scratching his butt. (There’s only one rule in fairy tales: never harm the helpful animal.)
This is a symbolic reflection of life; everyone is different so everyone needs to balance themselves in different ways. Maybe a workaholic needs to relax, but a lazy person probably needs to get to work. What’s medicine for one person is poison for another. So, what is the goal of Jungian analysis? The short answer is: individuation. That is, recovering our lost parts and integrating them into our conscious selves.
Jungian psychology says that our conscious selves, our egos, are in relation to just a small fraction of the totality of who we are. Most of “us” is actually in the unconscious, like an iceberg submerged in the ocean. Our task is to bring as much of that iceberg above the waterline as we can. So, in Jungian psychology “good” is consciousness, and “bad” is unconsciousness.
This actually gives Jungian psychology a very clear, though individualistic, parameter. If you do things that increase consciousness, you are doing the right thing. If, on the other hand, you’re doing things that increase unconsciousness you are doing “bad.” If you lash out at someone with your Demon function, or attack them with your Critic, you are increasing unconsciousness. If, on the other hand, you accept your weakness in the form of your Animus, or go into your Nemesis consciously to balance out your ego’s weakness, you increase consciousness.
If we do something that we think is “getting over someone” – passive aggressive behavior, cheating, unloading our anger on someone – we will increase unconsciousness in ourselves. This is bad for us. We’re not “getting over” anyone; the person we’re cheating, and hurting, most is us. And, at the same time, we’re also making the world a worse place, increasing unconsciousness in everyone around us, unless they are strong enough to avoid getting caught up in our bullshit. The world and everyone around us end up worse because of our existence.
This is the crux of the moral question: do I do the hard, painful, and not fun thing required of me to increase consciousness? Or do I do the easy, fun thing that increases unconsciousness? One of Marie-Louise von Franz’s analysands wanted to use active imagination to beat, stab, and kill someone she didn’t like (in her head, not IRL). MLvF immediately told her that this was a terrible idea; it wasn’t active imagination, it was black magic (misusing the unconscious for selfish and harmful purposes). It would not only have halted growth, this analysand would have gone backwards, i.e. they would have become even more neurotic, as neuroticism is basically psychology-speak for unconsciousness.
Another example is an ESFP I know who likes playing mind games with people who he feels deserve it. Unconscious ESFPs and ENFPs, thanks to their Fe Critic, have this problem where they tend to judge the people around them to be immoral. This, they feel, gives them license to be completely immoral themselves. The irony of their Fe Critic is that it can lead them to being some of the most immoral people of all the types, but every type does something similar, thanks to our hypocritical, sanctimonious Critic function. The problem is, this ESFP is hurting himself far more than he’s hurting anyone else, because he’s making himself more unconscious.
All of us have a similar tendency, all of us need to be vigilant and moral in our own lives. To do any less is cheating… and the only person we’re really cheating… is ourselves.
See also
The 8 function model
No comments:
Post a Comment