individual, but universal. And unlike the personal soul its contents and modes of behavior are relatively the same everywhere and in all individuals. It is, in other words, identical in all men and thus constitutes a common psychic substrate of a super personal nature which is present in every one of us. We will make an attempt though to oppose Jung on this issue. He states that “similar programs and common patterns affect not just some primitive modes of behavior like unconditioned reflexes, but also our perception, thoughts, imagination”. [1; 14]. Here is the difference: Jung considered the archetypes of the collective unconscious to be some cognitive patterns the instincts being their correlates. We on the other hand define these archetypical patterns as those of the individual nature. They affect human’s behavior and psychophysiology while instincts and reflexes are universal and hereditary. Jung was right in that “grasping the archetype comes before the act, triggering the inner behaviour”, but if the archetypes were universal the same stimulus would make them cause identical reactions in people. [1; 14]. And that would be contrary to both the common sense and reality.
We accept Jung’s assertion that the archetypical matrix, the one that a priori shapes human fantasies accounts for common motives in myths and fairy tales, explains the appearance of made-up characters. The large question is which archetypes and images underlie myths? “Primitive man impresses us so strongly with his subjectivity that we should really have guessed long ago that myths refer to something psychic”. [1; 100]. Assuming that mythology actually is of psychic origin, it would be logical to ascribe it to one’s individual psyche i.e. to the archetypes of an
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30