feelings, actions, etc. will be lead by mother filled conceptions, her image being superior in his personal unconscious. Jung warns that an image-forming complex may not only affect a personality but can easily capture it by using psyche for its own purpose, as with Leo Tolstoy and his forgiveness-dominating idea or Napoleon, obsessed with his thirst for power. And here everything seems to be make every bit of sense: the more dominating the image, the more it controls a personality, somewhat molding the latter. On the other hand it turns out that the images of the personal unconscious merge into the collective archetypes (as with the Mother-merging image), and here again Jung puts forward racial or collective emotional experience as the main complex-forming factor. Then what makes the personal and the collective unconscious different from each other if they are both created by images originating from the same source, same archetype. Could this mean that these two spheres are not quite differentiated, which results in their partial merging? If this is true, why then would the author state that the collective unconscious is universal and separated from the personal in the life of an individual? Even Jung himself defines the instances, where the archetypes of the collective unconscious “overlap” the ego and the personal unconscious as pathological right from the start. Can we then consider as normal the fact of the collective unconscious “mother-image” overlapping the area of the personal unconscious or it would be pathological? Taken as true, this assumption should probably mean that pathology is initially imbedded in the personal unconscious by the very possibility of merging with the images of the collective unconscious? But it makes no sense.
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