Author Topic: Differences in Feminine & Masculine Individuation  (Read 44974 times)

Rohche

  • Known Members
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Gender: Male
Re: Differences in Feminine & Masculine Individuation
« Reply #15 on: March 25, 2007, 04:32:24 AM »
I found something in Animus and Anima in Fairy Tales, by Marie-Louise von Franz, regarding a northern German fairy tale called “Old Rinkrank”:

A king had a daughter and built a glass mountain, saying only the man who can walk over this mountain can marry his daughter.  Along comes a man, and he and the daughter begin walking over the glass mountain.  But the mountain opens up and the daughter falls into it.  The hole closes up behind her.  Inside is a man with a seventeen inch long beard who asks the girl to be his maid.  He tells her to call him Old Rinkrank.  Every day he leaves and returns through a window in the glass which he reaches by a ladder, bringing back gold and silver which accumulates.  One day the girl decides to escape, so she shuts the window on Old Rinkrank’s beard and traps him there until he agrees to let her use the ladder to leave.  And so he does.  She goes to the King, who returns and Kills Old Rinkrank and takes all the gold and silver.  She then marries the man who had been walking over the mountain with her.

According to M-L von Franz, the girl could not fight animus (Old Rinkrank) by killing him.  “It is a male hero’s task to fight and conquer the monster.  The feminine path to individuation is by suffering and escaping.” – p. 20.

On page 46, pertaining to another fairy tale, “The Magic Horse” (too long to paraphrase here), M-L von Franz states, “Women go through the process of individuation mainly by suffering, when it is done in the right way; in the unconscious there then seems to be a shifting of the libido.  If one can adapt to the devil without being eaten by him, that makes for consciousness.”
« Last Edit: March 25, 2007, 09:13:44 AM by Rohche »

Matt Koeske

  • Management
  • *
  • Posts: 1173
  • Gender: Male
    • Useless Science
Re: Differences in Feminine & Masculine Individuation
« Reply #16 on: March 26, 2007, 05:15:24 PM »
I found something in Animus and Anima in Fairy Tales, by Marie-Louise von Franz, regarding a northern German fairy tale called “Old Rinkrank”:

According to M-L von Franz, the girl could not fight animus (Old Rinkrank) by killing him.  “It is a male hero’s task to fight and conquer the monster.  The feminine path to individuation is by suffering and escaping.” – p. 20.

On page 46, pertaining to another fairy tale, “The Magic Horse” (too long to paraphrase here), M-L von Franz states, “Women go through the process of individuation mainly by suffering, when it is done in the right way; in the unconscious there then seems to be a shifting of the libido.  If one can adapt to the devil without being eaten by him, that makes for consciousness.”

Hi Rohche, I think I am starting to better understand where you are coming from.

Have you found parallels in your own life to what MLvF said?

I'm still hesitant to make any gender equations here.  I feel I have made steps forward in the individuation process through a kind of passive suffering or perseverance . . . and also steps forward through actions and conscious sacrifices.  In fact, I would say that I don't associate "slaying" with any significant kind of progress in the Work.  Whenever I have harmed or killed anything in a dream, I was immediately filled with remorse . . . a tangibly painful weight upon me.  Which I associated with karma and with a recognition that my aggressive act (or desire) was wrong-headed. 

Of course, aggression/destruction is a common theme in fairytales and heroic myths . . . but I'd be willing to be (just a hunch) that in most fairytales, when the evil being that possesses or controls or imprisons is destroyed it is usually by a non-ego force.  Perhaps (to the degree that this hunch is valid), this is more of a "recycling" process (like what we would see in nature, in an ecosystem) than a willful conquering.

So, in the story MLvF relates, maybe it isn't so much an "animus" force that commits the aggressive act, but an "otherness", a not-I.  In the fairytale I recently posted about the Princess in the Tree (from Jung's "The Phenomenology of the Spirit in Fairytales"), we see the devil/hunter killed in the end by the horse he was riding on (with the help of her brother horse) . . . not by the protagonist.

I would say that it is more common in fairytales to see all "heroic acts" accomplished either by other beings than the protagonist or through the protagonists lack of willfulness.  If I'm right, then I would guess this is a result of the individuation Work being largely a willingness to submit to the instinct of the individuation archetype.  Darkness is not actually conquered.  This is why we find all those stories I love so much about heroes that are (or are mistaken for) Fools.  It's the Fool (male or female) who listens to the unconscious and not to the advice of his peers and parents and betters.

But, of course, in myths and legends we see much more brutality and many more heroes willing this brutality.  One can only guess as to why this is.  Perhaps it has something to do with the use of such myths and legends as cultural identifiers.  E.g., Heracles is the symbol of Greek cultural identity and achievement . . . etc.

I think that we can see in some of the dragon-slaying stories a kind of "Act One" to the heroic consciousness.  But Act Two brings us a more complex perspective (when it is portrayed) . . . one in which there is some fallout from the "heroic murder" of Act One.  Think of Gilgamesh.  Gilgamesh kills Humbaba and then the Bull of Heaven . . . but these "heroic murders" end up necessitating the death of his hairy brother, Enkidu.  And that death sets Gilgamesh off on a night-sea journey seeking immortality.

But Gilgamesh ultimately fails this quest . . . although one might argue it makes him a better (kinder) person.

The musical Into the Woods also shows us a "corrective" Act Two.

I think this is consistent with the "personality" of the unconscious.  Nothing is ever killed for the unconscious.  Things are dis-empowered while other things are empowered.  The libido moves in and out of things.  We don't for instance, kill the power our mother or father had over us . . . we merely depotentiate it.  If we work through it, the complex looses its death grip on us . . . but it will pop up in dreams and fears again and again throughout our lives . . . like an old portrait still hanging on the wall.  I think this is much the same as the way matter is never destroyed in the universe, only transformed and moved about.

From personal experience, I can say that as a man who has engaged in the anima work, I was only ever called on to surrender and endure . . . and to find my strength in my willingness to relinquish and sacrifice my ego-fragility and selfishness.  I was never called on to kill monsters.

So, perhaps MLvF is half-right.  But she forgot to include the masculine/men in her equation.

MLvF is of the "old school" as far as the animus goes.  She doesn't stray very far from Jung's conception of it.  I've never found this conception to be very valid . . . and I think it is rooted in sexism and Jung's mistake of identifying the Feminine too much with "feeling".  Or with what he called "feeling".  Since feeling appeared to be his inferior function, he contaminates it with inferiorities (really more like "bad thinking" than feeling).  I think what we are talking about when we look at the old school animus and anima characterizations are more often Jung's own shadow than anything universally valid for the anima and animus.

It is really a wonder he managed to communicate as much with his anima as he did . . . although it seems (from his own descriptions) that he had to make sure this communication was always on his own terms (and he was very hesitant to share any of this . . . e.g., Black and red Books).  In my experience, this approach runs against the flow of the Work.  But Jung seems to have managed a more "submissive" approach in his own life than he prescribed in his "professional writings".

Still, we can see a lot more anima influence in his later writings.  For instance, in his shift toward spiritual and theological pursuits and his devotion to Eastern mysticisms and alchemical symbolism.  Also, Jung's attitude toward these things grew more and more accepting.  I would argue that he even began giving these phenomena less "rationalistic" scrutiny toward the end of his life.  Of course, he still had to make himself feel scientific . . . but his writing was less and less so.

I believe the spiritual quest is the stuff of the anima work or the first alchemical opus . . . the "extraction of spirit from matter".  I get the impression that Jung saw this as indicative of a "complete individuation" . . . although I am not inclined to agree with him here (and neither, it would seem, are the alchemists who went on to pursue the re-infusion of spirit into matter).  What we do know is that there is no Jungian individuation paradigm to parallel this re-infusion of spirit into matter . . . although there are many useful observations in Jung's work that might serve as tools to construct such a paradigm.

You can always come back, but you can’t come back all the way.

   [Bob Dylan,"Mississippi]

Rohche

  • Known Members
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Gender: Male
Re: Differences in Feminine & Masculine Individuation
« Reply #17 on: March 26, 2007, 10:14:42 PM »
Well, I’m glad you’re understanding better where I’m coming from.  I have problems with that myself sometimes.  In answering your question about if I have found parallels in my own life with what M-L is saying, I would have to say no.  But I’m still very much in a learning stage, and I reserve judgement on all fronts.  That is, I don’t discount what she has to say, nor do I want to challenge what others say.  To my way of thinking, everyone’s experience and understanding has validity.  We are all on personal journeys.  And hopefully we will find answers along the way.  We may even find the answers are as varied as the individual roads we travel, ever changing and always drawing us on.

Matt Koeske

  • Management
  • *
  • Posts: 1173
  • Gender: Male
    • Useless Science
Re: Differences in Feminine & Masculine Individuation
« Reply #18 on: March 27, 2007, 09:27:20 AM »
Well, I’m glad you’re understanding better where I’m coming from.  I have problems with that myself sometimes.  In answering your question about if I have found parallels in my own life with what M-L is saying, I would have to say no.  But I’m still very much in a learning stage, and I reserve judgement on all fronts.  That is, I don’t discount what she has to say, nor do I want to challenge what others say.  To my way of thinking, everyone’s experience and understanding has validity.  We are all on personal journeys.  And hopefully we will find answers along the way.  We may even find the answers are as varied as the individual roads we travel, ever changing and always drawing us on.

Well said, Rohche.  It's always difficult to say someone else is "wrong" in matters like these.  Much of the difference has to do with personalizations of language or rhetoric.  As a writer, this has always been a concern (and sometimes a burden) for me.

I tend to approach things conflictingly.  It's my nature.  It's a scientific predisposition that doesn't really belong in a poet . . . but oh well.

But the way I see it, although we may all be "right" in our own way . . . this means we are just as likely to all be "wrong".  I know I'm wrong a lot . . . but I can never realize I am unless I keep testing my conclusions and hypotheses.  And I don't like to be wrong  ;D.  It's half OCD, probably, but also, being wrong is very selfish.  What right do we have to be wrong and proud of it?! (-)dvhuh(-)

And I have less of a problem disagreeing with Jung and Jungian ideas, because I recognize that my disagreements are relatively minor.  It's not like a democrat trying to convert a republican.  I am working with an agreed upon foundation with the Jungians.  Our theories, then, come down to arguments, evidence, logic (as opposed to tribalism).  Without this, Jungians would have to give up their scientific leanings . . . and many do.  But this leaves us with a religion or dogma . . . with which we are not allowed to disagree.

But I wouldn't say I recommend to others the negative approach I am inclined to take.  It makes for a bumpy ride.  But some of us are born dissatisfied.  We always address the world through this dissatisfaction, for better or (usually) for worse  (-).?!.(-).

Yours,
Matt
You can always come back, but you can’t come back all the way.

   [Bob Dylan,"Mississippi]

Maria

  • Dream Work Vessel
  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • Gender: Female
Re: Differences in Feminine & Masculine Individuation
« Reply #19 on: March 27, 2007, 10:10:02 AM »
(Dear Matt,

Quote
But the way I see it, although we may all be "right" in our own way . . . this means we are just as likely to all be "wrong".  I know I'm wrong a lot . . . but I can never realize I am unless I keep testing my conclusions and hypotheses.  And I don't like to be wrong  ;D.  It's half OCD, probably, but also, being wrong is very selfish.  What right do we have to be wrong and proud of it?! (-)dvhuh(-)

I think that all the rights and wrongs depend on whether we find something's place in our own personal life story (or individuation). I have realized already that those dead-end streets where I ended up, actually taught me more about myself than all the broad, straight avenues in the world. Some people are never satisfied with what they already know (do you know any?  ;D ), and until you know when you are wrong, you can never be right...

as one of my favourite Hungarian writers says in a novel: "If it is not where it is, then it is where it is not";D

But I think that the greatest thing we can learn from being wrong is actually a very practical thing. This is what my mother used to say when I, as a teenager, got on her nerves with highlighting her mistakes: "the question is not whether you make mistakes, everybody does, you will see. the question is what do you do when you realize you made a mistake, eh?".

Love,

Maria)
"Thou speak'st aright;
I am that merry wanderer of the night."

(Puck)

Matt Koeske

  • Management
  • *
  • Posts: 1173
  • Gender: Male
    • Useless Science
Re: Differences in Feminine & Masculine Individuation
« Reply #20 on: March 27, 2007, 10:39:14 AM »
I think that all the rights and wrongs depend on whether we find something's place in our own personal life story (or individuation). I have realized already that those dead-end streets where I ended up, actually taught me more about myself than all the broad, straight avenues in the world. Some people are never satisfied with what they already know (do you know any?  ;D ), and until you know when you are wrong, you can never be right...

as one of my favourite Hungarian writers says in a novel: "If it is not where it is, then it is where it is not";D

But I think that the greatest thing we can learn from being wrong is actually a very practical thing. This is what my mother used to say when I, as a teenager, got on her nerves with highlighting her mistakes: "the question is not whether you make mistakes, everybody does, you will see. the question is what do you do when you realize you made a mistake, eh?".

Amen, Sister!

If I have managed to learn anything of value in life, it's because I've always had a distinct propensity for walking into dead ends, failures, and Falls.  It takes a perfect combination of naivete and and bull-headedness . . . the recipe for Fools. (-)horsey(-)

Or . . . perhaps I've just never managed to learn anything of value . . .  (-)au(-)

Yours,
Matt
You can always come back, but you can’t come back all the way.

   [Bob Dylan,"Mississippi]

Maria

  • Dream Work Vessel
  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • Gender: Female
Re: Differences in Feminine & Masculine Individuation
« Reply #21 on: March 27, 2007, 10:48:02 AM »
Quote
Or . . . perhaps I've just never managed to learn anything of value . . .  (-)au(-)

you are value added already, Matt  (-)monkbggrn(-)
"Thou speak'st aright;
I am that merry wanderer of the night."

(Puck)

Maria

  • Dream Work Vessel
  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • Gender: Female
Re: Differences in Feminine & Masculine Individuation
« Reply #22 on: March 27, 2007, 10:48:33 AM »
(Dear Roger,

Quote
I have a bit of a problem here myself as I discovered that for quite a few years now, each time I take a personality test, the results show that my four functions are almost par, and my introvert/extravert 'position' varies according to the needs of the situation. I know this is past Jungian beliefs, but then...

It is interesting that I usually get INFP, but sometimes INFJ, and although there is less than 5% difference between feeling and thinking, I never get INTP or INTJ, which defies statistical likelihood, as far as I can tell...
Quote
(Maria and I were discussing about the archetypes lately, I think her musings are relevant here...)

Sure, and I am pretty interested in everybody's opinion!

here it goes (the background info for those who don't know me is that I am a funny person who spends most of her life in the intermediate realm between sleep and being awake, yes, I have always been scolded for "daydreaming" at school. I don't know what word to choose to describe these experiences, I don't much like the word "vision" - perhaps you could suggest something else. )

So, after an inner "adventure", I was wondering what the meaning beyond my dark animus is. And I realized that he wants to be whole. He is split. And this is what I understood: the archetypes are more than patterns of the "collective unconscious". They are... how to put it. They belong to the Earth. They are...hm... This planet is alive. The archetypes are the ways it tries to communicate with us humans (description for feeling types) or interactive virtual spaces, if you like (definition for thinking types), they are in-between creatures or phenomena, alive codes, like DNA.

you may say that it is projection to suppose that the planet is alive. But this is an inner experience, not an outer fact, I would say.

And what is the definition of "alive" or "life" anyway ???

Somehow, I never felt this definiton says anything about what life means, it is only a descprition of what living beings do:

Life is a condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

love,

Maria)
« Last Edit: March 27, 2007, 04:29:40 PM by Maria »
"Thou speak'st aright;
I am that merry wanderer of the night."

(Puck)

Matt Koeske

  • Management
  • *
  • Posts: 1173
  • Gender: Male
    • Useless Science
Re: Differences in Feminine & Masculine Individuation
« Reply #23 on: March 27, 2007, 12:25:43 PM »
you may say that it is projection to suppose that the planet is alive. But this is an inner experience, not an outer fact, I would say.

And what is the definition of "alive" or "life" anyway ???

Somehow, I never felt this definiton says anything about what life means, it is only a descprition of what living beings do:

Life is a condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

It interesting that one of the largest forms of life is one we are only just starting to recognize.  Namely, the ecosystem.  It is not only specific species within an ecosystem that are adaptive and grow, but the ecosystem itself can grow, adapt, be born, and die.

And these living ecosystems contain "inorganic", non-living elements . . . things like geological and geographic elements and weather (with connections even to gravitational and "celestial" forces).  These inorganic elements are part of the living systems.  And lets not forget that inorganic mother of all life, radiation.

I don't mean to link the archetypes directly to such inorganic elements, but only to suggest that the presence and interaction of archetypes may have to be seen in a larger, systemic way in order to make biological sense of them.  Or, more clearly, if archetypes are instincts (largely unique to our species), they evolved in response to environmental conditions . . . and so, in some sense, contain within them their evolutionary environment . . . and a connection to matter.

-Matt
You can always come back, but you can’t come back all the way.

   [Bob Dylan,"Mississippi]

Sealchan

  • Registered Members
  • Posts: 516
  • Gender: Male
Re: Differences in Feminine & Masculine Individuation
« Reply #24 on: March 30, 2007, 02:51:43 PM »
This is a topic I constantly touch on in doing my dream interpretations.  I think that one of the areas for growth in Jungian psychology is a mapping of myth and dream to supposed masculine and feminine differences in psychological development. 

I am convinced that there are such differences but they are highly plastic.  However, being as a good Jungian psychology is rooted in the body and instincts, we can surmise the possibility that the physical ground of being male versus female should have an impact on the psyche.  My sense in dreams is that masculine and feminine do map to something and they are not wholly interchangeable so there are consistent differences.  How this applies to homosexuals or people with transgender body development...I couldn't say.  And certainly the configuration of one's culture and its definition of roles and limitations for the sexes has a huge impact on how the archetypal images manifest in the individuals.

If I had to pick my candidate for how sexuality impacts psyche other than the obvious of how sexuality is an instinctual drive that over the course of millenia as allowed certain kinds of life to evolve and grow via sexual reproduction, I would say that it comes down to something along the lines of what Joseph Campbell has said, how the male versus the female body interacts with the process of sexual reproduction.  The female body houses the sperm/egg coniunctio and nurtures its development into new life which then emerges from her body.  The male, if a role is perceived at all (which understanding was not given with our human brains but had to be learned and retained on a cultural level), has a momentary role of providing the crucial substance.  Having done so, his physical role in the process has largely ended.

Now a process of spiritual development is always, partly, a conscious one and so there is, in some way a conscious understanding involved.  The conscious problem for women, from the earliest times, becomes then how to make meaning of their bodies as the vehicle of the cycles of life and death.  The problem of spiritual understanding for men is how to be the meaningful contributor to that process.  Even this may be a culturally biased perspective, but I hope to have reduced the difference enough to allow for the greatest plasticity such that both men and women can, at a more abstract level than pure physical experience, come to understand both sides of this polarity of masculine and feminine.  IN addition there are other physical differences of which I am not exhaustively familiar, but I believe include the following:

1. the nature and function of the sexual and reproductive organs
2. the hormones and how they influence behavior
3. a variety of other more subtle differences in body shape and design

Add to this the fact that we are a highly social species with a very involved and complex abstract cultural layer of behavior and we have the canvas for the variable development of male versus female associated ideas and roles.  I'm no linguist (I only know American English), but I do know that some languages designate their words as masculine versus feminine.  Aside from the cultural implications this may have, it does point to a deep distinction in the human psyche between what is masculine and feminine. 

Now in our modern culture where the whole birthing process can conceivably take place in the womb of science there is the notion that human reproduction can take place outside of the need for any physical contact whatsoever from fertilization through "birth", we can see that the male and female as conscious individuals need never experience the sexual or reproductive act.  If such a day comes (after I die I hope), then none of these forms of physical action or interact need influence the development of the individual human psyche any longer.  It would only be the inherent makeup of the physical body running along on its own genetically pre-determined course of sexual development that would remain as a physical influence on psyche.

If you want to think about aliens then you could come up with bodies of species that don't sexual reproduce (they bud) or require the participation of more than two individuals to reproduce.  Or maybe conscious plants that reproduce via third party species (insect) or element (wind) and each member of the species contains both the male and female organ...  You name it.  What impact or difference on psyche would such physical sexuality have then?

This is all to say that understanding the physical basis of sexual differences in the human species is probably going to be an important element in understanding how sexuality works in the psyche.  Our current cultural spiritualities probably reflect a varying awareness of the past traditions, future visions, physical/bodily mechanism of and non-sexual instinctual pressures (if there are any that measure up to the force of the sexual instinct) as they relate to sex and reproduction. 

You know, we really need to make contact with aliens 'cause...that would be cool...and then we could observe their alien sex.   (-)idea(-)




Matt Koeske

  • Management
  • *
  • Posts: 1173
  • Gender: Male
    • Useless Science
Re: Differences in Feminine & Masculine Individuation
« Reply #25 on: April 04, 2007, 04:27:35 PM »
Now a process of spiritual development is always, partly, a conscious one and so there is, in some way a conscious understanding involved.  The conscious problem for women, from the earliest times, becomes then how to make meaning of their bodies as the vehicle of the cycles of life and death.  The problem of spiritual understanding for men is how to be the meaningful contributor to that process.  Even this may be a culturally biased perspective, but I hope to have reduced the difference enough to allow for the greatest plasticity such that both men and women can, at a more abstract level than pure physical experience, come to understand both sides of this polarity of masculine and feminine.

But, Chris, the more fundamental question (in my opinion) needs to be: How sexualized is the process of spiritual development?  There are many biological processes that operate exactly the same way in both sexes (e.g., healing and bacteria/virus fighting).  What are the criteria we are using to link spiritual development specifically to sex differences?  Could sexuality be only tangentially related?  I mean, related only in a way that sex differences have limited or no impact on the process.

We would also have to define "spiritual development".  What is it?  How is it biological?

Add to this the fact that we are a highly social species with a very involved and complex abstract cultural layer of behavior and we have the canvas for the variable development of male versus female associated ideas and roles.  I'm no linguist (I only know American English), but I do know that some languages designate their words as masculine versus feminine.  Aside from the cultural implications this may have, it does point to a deep distinction in the human psyche between what is masculine and feminine.

Perhaps, but it also brings up another deeper/more fundamental issue: how "instinctual" is human culture?  One of the big "selling points" of human culture throughout the ages is that it is what "separates us from the animals".  Although there are many behavioral tendencies and even rituals involved with human culture that seem to have clear parallels in instinct (and in animal behavior) . . . such as courting, mating, parenting, coming of age rites . . . some aspects of human culture are clearly not reflected in any other species on this planet (e.g., philosophy, poetry, complex material construction, science, formal education, etc.).

As you know, I see the ego as an abstract organ, as an adaptation to the information-rich environment of human culture (an "adaptation" in the sense that each stimulated the need for the other, and they arose simultaneously . . . along with the necessary bridge between the two that we call language).  So much of what is human is defined by this culture (which doesn't play by the same rules as evolution).  It is not hard to imagine that our concepts of gender (which have always been plastic and continue to seem increasingly plastic) could have been constructed culturally with only a limited biological basis.

All I mean to say is that the appearance of a cultural tradition does not clearly indicate an exact biological source.  Even our own biology and instincts are interpreted and made meaningful to us through our egos (our culture organs).

Now in our modern culture where the whole birthing process can conceivably take place in the womb of science there is the notion that human reproduction can take place outside of the need for any physical contact whatsoever from fertilization through "birth", we can see that the male and female as conscious individuals need never experience the sexual or reproductive act.  If such a day comes (after I die I hope), then none of these forms of physical action or interact need influence the development of the individual human psyche any longer.  It would only be the inherent makeup of the physical body running along on its own genetically pre-determined course of sexual development that would remain as a physical influence on psyche.

But, we have evolved biologically to favor and desire sexual reproduction.  Even if we could eliminate the "need" for it, it wouldn't eliminate the drive, the instinct.

We are still supposed to be hunter-gatherers evolutionarily speaking.  We have existed in this incongruity with our biology for thousands of years now (maybe tens of thousands).  What we know about the process of evolution tells us that in order for us to change biologically, we would have to reinforce an adaptation/mutation by sexually reproducing it and spreading it throughout the gene pool.

Or, of course, we could engage in the dystopian nightmare of genetic manipulations, eugenics and so forth.  But unless we try to cultivate ourselves like we would crops or livestock or pets, it doesn't seem very probable that we will engender any more biological adaptations.  Unless we have a drastic environmental change that destroys large portions of our species and favors the survival of individuals who possess certain immunities or resistances or flexibilities.

This is all to say that understanding the physical basis of sexual differences in the human species is probably going to be an important element in understanding how sexuality works in the psyche.  Our current cultural spiritualities probably reflect a varying awareness of the past traditions, future visions, physical/bodily mechanism of and non-sexual instinctual pressures (if there are any that measure up to the force of the sexual instinct) as they relate to sex and reproduction.

Here I agree.  When we talk about sex as a drive that fuels our need to reproduce and the ability of our species to exist and thrive, then I definitely think it would influence our psychology (and innumerable examples of this exist in our fantasies, myths, and religions).  But in this reproductive drive there is a great deal of similar need in each sex, namely, the need to perpetuate one's genes (those "selfish genes" that Richard Dawkins talks about).

The evolutionary psychologists talk about the sex difference in this scenario, noting that the male's best genetic interest can be in the "love 'em and leave 'em" spreading of genetic material to as many women as possible, whereas the woman's best genetic interest is in finding a mate who will do a good job of not only producing, but raising or enabling the children.  But this is complicated by the fact that two "infidelity" strategies can also be effective.  A man can spread his genetic material by having sex with a woman who already has a mate (who is good at "fathering") in the hope that the husband will be deceived and raise the other man's child as his own (thus enabling him to go out and play the paramour in much the same way with other women.  This can backfire if the cuckolded husband finds out about the deceit and refuses to raise the child as his own.  So it's a tricky strategy to pull off.  Usually monogamy is safer and easier to manage.

In much the same way, the woman can find better genetic success in choosing a husband who is a good father but a lover/mate who has "good genetic material".  In this evolutionary model, both monogamy and infidelity are "selected for".  And voila! the human being and its sexual predilections.  It's a lot like morality (reciprocal altruism) and deceitfulness both working as effective survival strategies.

But I wouldn't be surprised if psychological/archetypal sex differences had some relationship with the model above.  So, we might guess that a woman will have two common animus types: the stable husband/good father (who is dedicated to her genetic material, one might say) and the paramour (who can give her a higher level of genetic material to bear).  In the latter type we see the demon lover archetype that is a common manifestation of the animus (especially shadow-animus).  If we look at the classic folk song "The House Carpenter", we can see these two types of animuses contrasted.  The ideal, it seems, would be an animus/mate who is both good father/partner and good genetic compliment/donor.  It would not be surprising if the animus work for a woman began with the demon lover animus, but ended up with an animus that was also personally and emotionally invested in the woman and her "offspring" or New Birth.

We can also imagine a thesis-->antithesis-->synthesis process that would go like this: father animus (who was "stable" enough to raise his daughter) --> demon lover animus (who seduces the woman away from the father/daughter sexual dynamic toward a partner-other dynamic) --> good husband/twin animus (who is both her sexual other/partner and a masculine force that can help facilitate what the woman wants to bring forth out of herself or become).

In a man, we might see an anima who is loyal/stable, a good wife . . . and also an anima that he can "sneak off to" and impregnate so she can bear his secret love child.  The dynamic is actually very much the same as with the woman . .  so there aren't very distinct sex differences here, after all.  In both scenarios the development of the animi are paralleled by the ego's own relational maturity.  As you give, so shall you receive . . . in essence.  Which may just as well be the "Law of the Animi".  The depth and devotion of the relationality our animi give to us is a reflection of the depth and devotion we are giving to them.

-Matt
You can always come back, but you can’t come back all the way.

   [Bob Dylan,"Mississippi]

Sealchan

  • Registered Members
  • Posts: 516
  • Gender: Male
Re: Differences in Feminine & Masculine Individuation
« Reply #26 on: May 02, 2007, 04:40:01 PM »
In an independent study of Complex Adaptive Systems I did in school, I created a genetic algorithm (a cyclical computer simulation of pairing, reproducing, genetic offspring) based on the following premise:  there are 16 types of Personality, those personalities that are similar and those that are extremely different are more likely to mate, others that are more ambiguously different are less likely.  Offspring are a genetic combination of the personalities of their parents.

The goal with this sort of thing is to look for emergent patterns of collapse into simpler systems, diversification, etc.  I didn't draw any particular conclusions from my work but it was a great hands on exercise in creating a genetic algorithm. 

Since humans have so changed their environment that constraints on success to reproduce are vastly different than they were in the hunter-gatherer days, I would say that evolution of the human form is now veering sharply away from speciation (as expressed in racial differences) and towards a rich diversity of previously isolated genetic trends.  I suspect that the trend is in democratic societies towards mating by psychologically based pairings rather than less ordered (genetically) socially selected (arranged marriages) and purely instinctual-unconscious (whim-lust-rape) matings.  I am one to be open to the idea that Jungian typology is a road map toward understanding ego-animi pairing likelihoods although I haven't seen any research to back this up.  It seems to be the claim of the Please Understand Me authors... 

smart_s

  • Registered Members
  • Posts: 9
Re: Differences in Feminine & Masculine Individuation
« Reply #27 on: May 10, 2007, 04:03:10 PM »
I think there should be a distinction made between the feminine/masculine description of the self and the male/female sexual differences.  When I was in college it was the time of the so-called women's liberation movement where woman wanted to get rid of the male and female stereotypes. 

That was over 30 years ago, although more woman are recognized for their selves and for their contributions, there are still  Y-chromosomes and X-chromosones.  When I was in college taking mathematics and science classes there was about a 95% male versus female participation rate.  While there are more females taking these classes today there is still a large gap.  And there is still a large gap between female grade school teachers and male grade school teachers.   

I recently attended an intro. meeting for a new software product.  There approximently 40 attendees with only one woman present.  At least, for this event there is still a large disparity.


Roger

  • Known Members
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Gender: Male
Anima, functions, life and the lot
« Reply #28 on: May 17, 2007, 10:40:40 AM »
I post here a slightly revised version of a post I have made at the Unus Mundus Forums. I hope this will not be too confusing.

I am reacting to different posts from here, the Unus Mundus forums and and Kaleidoscope.
I guess I am annoyed with a few things, though I have no fight, no battle to win. My experience is enough with me.

I hope this post will not stay unanswered as many of mine for at times I really wonder about my English. 

As long as one feels the wound it means that healing has not had its share. But here I am talking of a very special type of healing. I know that a time comes hopefully when such a healing happens. This healing simply cuts once for all any resistance towards the flow of life out of the Unus Mundus. Of course this has a few consequences as regards the strategic position of the Logos Ego such as for instance its complete relativization as regards the Eros Self.
By this I mean that the Logos Ego eventually becomes also a sort of self reflecting tool but no more, and even that is enough.

I have been pondering about a few things Remo Roth wrote about the anima, the feeling types and Jung’s typology.

I guess he is on the right track but still fiddling with words and concepts.

My personal reaction of long as regards all this stuff is that it simply could not work with me.
So I agree heartily with his questioning but would like to add a little bit of mine:

As far as I have been able to understand CGJ, it seems to me there is a big confusion in his theory between different CONCEPTS: inferior function, the anima/animus and the transcendent function (or is it my confusion?)

On one side Jung says that the inferior function is the link to the unconscious, on another he says that the anima/animus is also the link to the unconscious/[Logos] Self, and then he also develops his theory of the psychopumpus and the transcendent function.

All this is very shitty.

I have never had a conflicting relation with the anima. I have always felt she was driving me where I belonged to whatever the heck and the pains. Thus Remo Roth will say this is typical of a feeling type relation to the Great feminine. But I am not sure this is exactly that.

Saying as he does that anima conflicts are typical of thinking types might be true but maybe he goes a little bit too fast.

As I wrote somewhere else functions are tools, and I do not agree with Jung that it is so difficult to put the four of them at work together. So the point is not with the function orientation but with the Ego’s charge in terms of unconscious power.
True enough we are a thinking (extraverted) civilization but this does not mean that thinking is evil. Thinking types may have big difficulties to relate to the Eros World, but this is not because they are thinking types. It is because the overall collective pressure enhances extraverted thinking as the best adaptation to reality (!!!). Thus they are not helped at all in integrating the other functions. However they can. It is simply much more complicated, hard, and difficult.

So comes also the ‘anima’ CONCEPT.
The anima concept is the symbolic representation of the repressed opposite in a man. She is feminine because a man is masculine. But of course this has not much to do with concretized sex differences. It is energy stuff, terms of a bipolar unitary ‘stuff’.
I would say that the anima CONCEPT is a very rough description of the ultimate opposite in a male psyche. So of course in thinking types she very easily melts with repressed feeling, and cannot appear as such of course in a feeling type. But it does not mean that a feeling type has no anima troubles till he stays unconscious of the power drive. Many male feeling types cannot really relate to the Unus Mundus, the deep Eros, because of the power drive, and the unconscious extraverted relation to the world this one implies.
So I guess that the anima stuff is a very special dimension. The anima opposes the unconscious power drive because she is completely belongs to Eros Self in depth.

I have been shown in one of my visions that ‘archetypes’ are the ‘upper’ manifestation of the united Eros Self, sorts of knots (as a tree has knots) ‘used’ to drag consciousness away and free it from the unconscious extraverted power drive. Something of the kind also appeared in Maria’s visions. So the anima, described as an archetype by Jung, behaves that way to.

I guess that Jung’s whole conceptual apparatus is approximate because exactly of his falling into the unconsciousness of the power drive.

[...]

I would like to go a little bit further though, and what is coming will certainly have a perfume of hell for many people.

In my experience the relation with the Eros Self becomes a sort of permanent state. Nothing in my life can be done anymore without it. It means that the conscious abandon of the Logos Ego’s will leads somewhere else. From the starting point, almost experimental, of the Body Centred Imagination (see Remo Roth’s website for more details) comes a completely different way of living one’s life.
If one really goes down enough say into the belly then a new life is lived through us. This life does not belong to us; we are just its carrier/enactor in this present incarnation.
Of course it means being mad (enough). It means that our choices are not taken by our conscious will but by our conscious will-lessness.

This is bloody possible. More this is bloody right and necessary.

Roger.

Matt Koeske

  • Management
  • *
  • Posts: 1173
  • Gender: Male
    • Useless Science
Re: Differences in Feminine & Masculine Individuation
« Reply #29 on: May 17, 2007, 11:18:51 AM »

The discussion on Kaleidoscope Roger mentions can be found here: http://kaleidoscope-forum.org/talk/index.php?topic=1275.0.

It was originally an offshoot of a discussion about Jung's "Amfortas Wound" as a splintering experience that led to his type theory.  This notion belongs to John Ryan Haule.  His essay on the subject can be found here: http://www.jrhaule.net/wound.html.

My original response to Remo's claim that the anima and animus are "thinking type" phenomena is copied below.

-Matt



Dear Remo et al,

I feel I should offer some alternative viewpoints here, as someone who identifies as an "Intuitive-Feeling Type" by Jungian standards.

That is, I would consider myself an Intuitive-Feeling type because my first response to everything comes from intuition (I see the pattern of connectedness in a flash) immediately followed, or perhaps simultaneously accompanied by, feeling (sensing the value of a thing or of the intuited pattern, knowing its worth).

By contrast, I had to work very hard to develop my "thinking function" through my apprenticeship as a writer.  So, I intuit-feel and then I think it up into language, into an idea.  Sensation has come even later (but it seems to operate "pre-cognitively", much like intuition and feeling).

I recognize that as a "feeling type" my way of thinking (I'm using this term out of convenience, it isn't meant as a "typed thinking", and I don't want to engage in an argument about semantics here) is often quite unlike that of most of the Jungians I've encountered.  In fact, I recognize many of the similarities between my way of thinking/knowing and Remo's.

But, in spite of this, I have to disagree with Remo's notion that the anima is a thinking type phenomenon.  I am also disinclined to draw a strict distinction between the anima and the anima mundi.  In my personal experience, these archetypes are absolutely the same thing . . . but looked at from two different stages in the process.

As Remo says of "feeling types", I have not had a negative experience of the anima.  My first anima dream (at the age of about 18) depicted her as a mad women who pinned down my arm and injected me with a syringe filled with mercury (although, I had "signed myself up" for this procedure).  After that, she was an entirely positive figure.

Drawing primarily from my own experience with the anima, I have come to the following general conclusions:
1.) She possessed a complimentary personality to my conscious personality, and was therefore much more practical (sensation type) than me.  Although, she seemed to have fully developed all of her "functions".  So she also possessed a more cultivated/conscious intuition and feeling than I did.  She was non-intellectual, but certainly very intelligent (was able to discriminate/differentiate ideas based on their value).  She seemed to possess skills and characteristics that were within my realm of conscious integration.

2.) She charged me with a powerful feeling that was both sexual and mystical, very numinous . . . and I was always able to identify her instantly in my dreams due to this profound attraction.

3.) Her main message was, "Pay attention to me, not to yourself/your ego."  That is, she was always in greater need than I was, and as the anima work progressed, I stopped seeing her as a partner who was there for me, there to complete me, and started seeing her as a character/being that I needed to invest my empathy and energy in.  It was I who had to give myself to her.

4.) As I committed to this giving/sacrifice, what I call the "anima work" progressed in the following way: (anima seen as) sexual/mysterious partner (desire driven) --> spiritual/mystical partner (working for the same mystical goal) --> teacher/Sophia/goddess of wisdom --> anima mundi or maternal Great Goddess.

5.) As the anima transforms into a figure very much like the Self, the individual is led toward a dual sacrifice (which is really the only "hard" thing about the anima work, as the rest flows instinctually as long as one gives oneself over to the process).  On one hand, the ego's will is sacrificed for the will of the Self.  Simultaneously, the anima-as-partner is sacrificed, dies, or is, as Jung phrased it "depotentiated".

I interpret the depotentiation of the anima as an acceptance by the male ego that it/he must now bear the burden of "translating the Self" and carrying the will of the Self into the World.  Part of this is refusing to abide by a "providential relationship" to the unconscious or the Self, i.e., one in which we "turn inward" for sustenance or "manna".  This is the sacrifice of the dependency on the "maternal unconscious".  It shouldn't be confused with a "heroic defeat" of the Mother . . . that is, I think, a patriarchal fantasy largely accentuated as a compensation for fear that one is overly dependent on the ("devouring") Mother.

To make the "healthy" split from the maternal unconscious, one has to be able to acknowledge that one is always in some way dependent on it for all libido . . . but instead of usurping that libido for the ego's favorite delusions and flights and self-gratifications, one seeks to consciously direct the libido in ways that the Self approves of or desires.

I had two "detachment" or depotentiation dreams that helped me understand this.  In one, I was the lover of the daughter of God (portrayed as a mafia "Godfather").  She was abducted by a strange mystical cult.  I recovered her once, but she was taken again.  As I continued to search for her, a booming voice (of God) assaulted me from the heavens and told me I must desist and accept that this was the way things had to be.

In the other depotentiation dream, I met my anima in an empty museum in which  a "great work" I had made was cordoned off and dark (depotentiated).  I went with her into a bathroom where she held me on her lap and gave me her breast to suck (she was a hermaphrodite in this dream, or as Remo says, "The queen with a phallus").  Then she told me that she was going away (or dying) and that she would never return . . . but that I knew that this had to be so.  I grudgingly accepted this, and she disappeared.

In fact, it was so.  I have never had another full blown anima dream since this one.  Anima-like characters still show up in my dreams occasionally, but they are always minor, background characters and usually exude a quality of "old friend" I hadn't seen in many years.

I believe that this series of dreams (and the corresponding experience/consciousness) follows the alchemical process (especially as depicted in the first opus of the Rosarium Philosophorum emblems).  That is, the peak of the anima experience ends at the coniunctio, after which she is depotentiated.  The post-coniunctio stages (e.g., the putrefactio and purification/albedo), I believe represent the painstaking stage of "sorting out" the whole anima experience and differentiating the ego from the Self.  This differentiation has to be performed in order for the ego to have a healthy, conscious relationship to the Self.  Insomuch as the ego is Self-identified (or inflated), it will be usurping the Self's libido for egoic interests.

Trying to usurp the Self (or ask for it to provide for the ego) after the coniunctio is likely only to result in depression (putrefactio), as there won't be enough energy coming to the ego in the form of "manna" to sustain a totally functional life.  Therefore, one must "purify" the ego (from inflated archetypal identifications) in order for the "soul" to return and for the first rebirth (depicted sometimes as the white stone or white tincture) to occur.  I see this as setting up a polaric relationship between ego and Self that functions like a battery for libido.

At this point, the ego has assumed the "job" of the anima . . . as facilitator and translator of the Self.

I have seen no evidence that this process is much different in women (with the animus) as it is in men (with the anima).  In fact, I think there are many indications that this entire process (which is often thought of as mystical or spiritual) is deeply biological.  The animi archetype, then, is the archetype that draws the individual away from a parental unconscious on which s/he is dependent and uses sexual attraction to reconnect the individual to a partner-type relationship to the unconscious/Self.

As this archetype is severely projected (when it is activated), it would also serve as the human equivalent of the "mating instinct" that drives one toward a compatible mate.  The drive toward a mate (and away from the parent or "out of the nest") is also an "individuation" in which one discovers "who one is" in regard to the parents and the various "parental institutions" in our cultures on which we had become unconsciously dependent.  In other words, this anima work is, in my opinion, an "independence movement" . . . of which "consciousness" (in the Jungian sense) is a byproduct.

I don't disagree with Remo (and many others) that there is a great deal of confusion (and perhaps intellectualization) surrounding the animi in Jung and Jungian writing . . . but I do not think they can be seen as merely a thinking type phenomenon, since they seem to have a biological purpose that is equivalent in both sexes.

I also agree with Remo that Jung's conflicted portrayal of the animi is probably the product of something he didn't confront sufficiently in himself.  But I have the feeling that (in trying to understand Jung's portrayal of the animi) we need to consider that we are getting two "animi stories" from Jung.  "Professionally" he often depicted the animi as equivocal figures that need to be just as much resisted as embraced.

But (as Remo also notes), if one maintains such a resistant (or as Remo says, "Neoplatonic") attitude toward the anima, the anima work will not progress very far.  "Courageous surrender" (to the instinctual process) is the only method of "doing" the animi work.  Yet, Jung seems to have gleaned a great deal more about the anima and the Self than one can from resisting the anima (he even understands the eventual depotentiation of the anima).  Therefore, I suspect that there is a severe discrepancy between what Jung wrote about the anima and what he actually experienced.  It seems he gave a great deal more to this process in his private life than he was able to clearly weave into theory in his writings.

But, regardless of how true this hypothesis might be, it is clear that any discrepancy like this still indicates an unresolved conflict in Jung.  My personal belief is that this remained unresolved because Jung never found an adequate way of understanding and making peace with the inflation that is a substantial byproduct of the anima work.  I.e., he still felt ashamed about this inflation and could not bring its lead into the alchemical work to process it consciously.  But that's a whole other topic.

Yours,
Matt
You can always come back, but you can’t come back all the way.

   [Bob Dylan,"Mississippi]