| |
My understanding of Jung's Self is that it is a composite of a Transpersonal Self, indeed a jivatman, and an Authentic self, something akin to Winnicott's idea of the raw, vulnerable inner self, an egg-yolk surrounded by a personna or Winnicottian albumen. This would place the latter at the level of the first three fulcrums. Given the composite nature of this Self, it lends confusion as to Jung's notion of Individuation when subjected to an Integral lens because this process would have to proceed in two directions; the prepersonal and the transpersonal. Given that Jung was essentially a straight-arrow Cartesian, he had to collapse prepersonal into transpersonal in order to accommodate a unified individuating process towards his notion of the Self.
One individuates by negotiating the archetypes through a combination of enactment and transcendence. Herein lies a confusion of prepersonal archetypes (e.g. trickster, animus/anima) and transpersonal ones (e.g. the five Buddha families in the mahayana samboghakaya) so that the Self (from an integral perspective) is both prepersonal and transpersonal….KWs criticism of Jung as an elevationist is thus born out.
Although it doesn't invalidate out Carl, whose erudition when shorn of the pre/trans fallacy, has a helluvalot to teach us.
Washburn makes the same mistake. KW Eye of spirit. Also KW in dialogue.
Hope this proves of use. x
|
