Thanks for the comment. I am in dire need of input. Jung's archetypal notion depends on the transmission of acquired traits, which was anathema in his own time (except in the Soviet union, during a time). The latest findings in epigenetics show that acquired traits are passed on to subsequent generations - at a surprisingly high degree and at a high pace, to boot. Jung knew nothing about this. It can undergird the notion, forwarded by Jung, that our medieval history has forged our modern mentality. I discuss this effect of the medieval era
here. According to recent findings, human evolution has been moving at breakneck speed in the past several thousand years (Dunham 2007,
here. See also article
here). Today, we are quite different from people living even a few thousand years ago. The new findings also show that the human genome in the different continents have diverged and continue to do so. It is evident that there are different variants of psychic structure in humankind, and that psychic structure changes within the time frame of a couple of thousand years.
It is also evident, as you point out, that the findings of chaos theory, such as the phenomenon of "strange attractors" can contribute to the understanding of archetypal determinants. We know today that nature, especially biological nature, makes use of fractal geometry. We only need a little seed, in the form of a very simple algorithm, that is repeated recursively, to create a very complex structure. Arguably, diverse psychic structures could emerge from simple seeds, too.
Still, this is in the way of reductive science. It views the archetype as secondary to the physical world. Jung aimed to elevate the archetype as a reality in its own right. That's why he created his metaphysical system where neither psyche nor matter takes precedence. However, his system smacks of 19th century idealistic philosophy. Hegel's philosophy relies on the existence of absolutes, embodied in a World Spirit permeating reality. Hegel's dialectic was characterized as a three-step process, "thesis, antithesis, synthesis". As you point out, Jung was overly fond of this thinking.
Jung failed in his attempt to establish the reality of the psyche. The modernized variant of 19th century metaphysical cosmogony didn't work. His synchronicity notion has proved useless, and his Platonic metaphysic is obsolete. Nobody claims to understand it. M-L von Franz fails in her attempt to clarify it. Her Number and Time, is abstruse. Of course, much of Jung's theory is immensely valuable, but nobody seems to have lived through his programme of individuation: from the shadow, via the anima and the wise old man, to the self. To my knowledge, nobody claims to have followed this path. Jung's notion of self, which is extravagant and out of proportion, has created a backlash to pagan beliefs.
Carl Jung, in old age, realized that people had not been able to adopt his system. Towards the end of his life, he said:
"I have failed in my foremost task – to open people's eyes to the fact that man has a soul, there is a buried treasure in the field, and that our religion and philosophy are in a lamentable state." He also had a vision, or dream, in which he saw the whole earth scorched, and only a part of China had survived. Of course, according to Jung's view, the Chinese already employed the synchronicity notion, and the Tao would correspond to Jung's transcendental layer of 'absolute knowledge'. This could be the reason why only the Chinese could be rescued from annihilation, in the dream.
I have tentatively suggested that there is a way out of this dilemma. According to the
complementarian notion, the above physicalistic explanations of the archetype are wholly adequate. It is a standalone view of reality which is unobjectionable. Nevertheless, it needs to be complemented by another standalone view of reality, which is equally unobjectionable - a world in which the psyche and spirit take precedence. In this way, both psyche and archetype have acquired reality status, in a complementary fashion. If the archetype is secondary to matter in the worldly paradigm, it is viewed as primary in the spiritual paradigm. Thus, there are two different ways of looking upon reality, both equally good.
This is borne out by the perspective of the unconscious psyche, which aspires at independent reality status. Figures of dreams insist that they are real. When people are about to die, a dream might express that now its time to travel to the Otherworld, as if existence would continue there. The unconscious is adamant about this seemingly naive and animistic perspective. It is as if the unconscious psyche views itself as an independent reality in itself. From this perspective, the archetypes are "entities of psyche", i.e., they have a light of their own, and a degree of free will. They correspond to psychic deities, in a sense, which is the picture that mythology relates.
According to the complementarian view, this worldview is wholly adequate in itself. To view the archetype as autonomous psychic being is wholly sufficient, and there is no need to undergird it by recourse to abstruse metaphysics or reductive physicalistic science. If psyche is viewed as real ontic substance, then it follows that there can be entities of psyche, which are endowed with psychic qualities, such as a relative degree of consciousness and free will. That such psychic entities exist is as self-evident as the existence of stones in the materialistic paradigm. Thus, by applying a complementarian metaphysics the quandary can be elegantly solved. Although the physicalist perspective is retained, the psyche is granted a proper reality status in a complementary aspect of reality. Thus, there is no need to create an awkward conglomerative metaphysic of matter and psyche, which Jung has attempted.
The three models that you present are founded upon either the physicalist paradigm or Jungian conglomerative metaphysics. The former has the advantage, as you point out, that it is academically inclined and intellectually sound. The latter has the advantage that it endows the archetype with ontological reality status, which is quintessential to Jungian psychology. However, it is intellectually awkward and has occasioned a regress along neo-pagan lines.
The complementarian solution dispenses with the 19th century type of conglomerative metaphysics and separates the spiritual paradigm from the worldly paradigm, allowing reality status to each. However, it is characterized by an exclusive disjunction, that is, "one or the other, but not neither nor both." They are not parallel in time, and it's not possible to live in both realities at the same time. Thus, one has to make a choice. It is borne out by the nature of the self, which is complementary: one side of me is a worldly, highly curious and scientific person, eager for knowledge. Another side of me is a reclusive who would like to cease this strife and go live in a grotto on a mountain slope above the clouds.
I do not only speak for myself. I know that this double-naturedness is prevalent. It is not considered diseased. Rather, it is viewed as worthy of imitation. Roman emperors were typically very dutiful and ambitious bureaucrats (although we hear only of the mad emperors, like Nero). After having ruled the world they abruptly decided to withdraw to their humble little country estate where they would devote themselves to growing cabbage. At least, this was the ideal. They said they enjoyed their "otium cum dignitate", and the preserved letters contain trivial matters of how they enjoy their little garden, etc. It is a remarkable shift in attitude, which is not uncommon in human nature. How is it possible, if we don't have recourse to a complementary aspect of self? The twofold self is associated with a twofold worldview. It cannot work with a monistic worldview, on lines of Jung's neutral monism. Nor does it square with the physicalistic monism of the materialistic scientists, or the idealistic monism of the philosophers.
Arguably, Jung misinterpreted his youthful experience of having two personalities (No.1 and No.2), as related in his autobiography. He came to understand No.1 as ego and No.2 as self. In my interpretation they represent two complementary aspects of self, of whom one remains in the shadow. Personality No.1 was more extraverted, characterized by no-nonsense, whereas his No.2 personality was more introverted and emotional. Jung's unitarian self is a 'complexio oppositorum', characterized by a strong inner tension. The Jungian self combines the worldly personality with the spiritual. It is what has motivated Jung's metaphysical system that attempts to combine two mutually exclusive worldviews. If No.1 and No.2 are viewed as complementary, it would mean that they could change place: No.2 takes precedence and No.1 ends up in the shadow. This cannot occur in Jung's model, while No.2 represents the one and only wholeness, whereas No.1 is viewed as a kind of outgrowth on the psychic tree, known as the ego. On a complementarian view, the psyche can experience a reversal, whereby No.2 takes over the role as ego ideal. However, it would give rise to a much different ego, much toned down and less expansive.
Is this a satisfying solution? Philosophically minded people will perhaps argue that it is an easy way out, and that it is not to the taste of people who would like to live in a unified world. But the nub of the matter is that they may continue to live in a unified world, it's only that they must decide whether to belong to the one paradigm or the other, however, without rejecting the alternative paradigm. Science and faith ought to be viewed as parallel worldviews that aren't quite self-sustaining, in themselves, and therefore must be brought to completion by their counterpart. As a consequence, their respective paradigmatic status is maintained despite the fact that religious and scientific truth is relativized. A scientific worldview cannot take into account moral, spiritual, and psychological factors, as reality is portrayed without relation to the human soul. It means that the scientific paradigm is not quite adequate as a worldview on its own.
For example, according to the biblical creation story, history before man can be summarized as five days of divine creation. The authors of the Pentateuch conveyed the spiritual truth, since history only begins at the moment when we become aware of God. So remarkably important is this event. God sees himself through his relation to man, and so mankind mirrors God. The notion that man was created in the image of God relates an important truth. Had they written about the historical and geological truth, things would get the wrong proportions. So the world is whole, after all. Neither the human personality nor society can manage without both aspects of reality, the sacred and the profane. I have written about these issues in The Complementarian Self (
here) and Critique of Synchronicity (
here), etc.
Mats Winther