We all have our shadow but since mlcers do not like what they see in their shadow they need to project it onto someone as their personas have worn a mask all along and are
not able to sort these issues in their regressed state....that's the way i understand it.The persona they show does not match the shadow and therefore they need to become balanced through transition.
The article below on Marriage As A Psychological Relationship that Carl Jung wrote in 1925, made me think about my own situation......on fatal compulsion and a lack of free choice......wud like to share it ..... any comments / views?
Dr Bren looks at ..The Development of Personality (1954/1991), Volume 17 of The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, ...it includes an essay entitled “Marriage as a Psychological Relationship” that Carl Jung wrote in 1925 and was translated into English in 1926. Jung made a clear distinction about what he meant by “psychological.”
Whenever we speak of a “psychological relationship” we presuppose on that is conscious, for there is no such thing as a psychological relationship between two people who are in a state of unconsciousness. From the psychological point of view they would be wholly without relationship. From any other point of view, the physiological for example, they could be regarded as related, but one could not call their relationship psychological. It must be admitted that though such total unconsciousness as I have assumed does not occur, there is nevertheless a not inconsiderable degree of partial unconsciousness, and the psychological relationship is limited in the degree to which that unconsciousness exists. (p. 189, [CW 17, ¶ 325])
In this passage Jung equated “psychological” with conscious, and in particular, conscious about one’s self and their partner. He suggested that to the extent the couple is unconscious of their own and their partner’s psychology the “psychological relationship” is limited and in a state of primitive identity with others which he calls “a complete absence of relationship” (p. 190, [CW 17, ¶ 326]).
Next Jung directly called out the fool who things he is done, but has only just begun, suggesting that these relationships are formed through forces that are mostly unconscious which he likened to a fatal compulsion and a lack of free choice.
Subjectively, of course, he thinks himself very conscious and knowing, for we constantly overestimate the existing content of consciousness, and it is a great surprising discovery when we find that what we had supposed to be the final peak is nothing but the first step in a very long climb. The greater the area of unconsciousness, the less is marriage a matter of free choice, as is shown subjectively in the fatal compulsion one feels so acutely when one is in love. The compulsion can exist even when one is not in love, though in less agreeable form. (p. 190, [CW 17, ¶ 327])
Jung stressed, “it is the strength of the bond to the parents that unconsciously influences the choice of husband or wife, either positively or negatively” (p. 191, [CW 17, ¶ 328]). He went on to state that, “the children are driven unconsciously in a direction that is intended to compensate for everything that was left unfulfilled in the lives of their parents (p. 191, [CW 17, ¶ 328]). With this in mind Jung proposed, “one must know first of all the cause of the unconscious tie to the parents, and under what conditions it forcibly modifies, or even prevents, the conscious choice (p. 191, [CW 17, ¶ 328]). Of course, this is no small task yet Jung says no more in this essay about bringing these unconscious motives to consciousness. Perhaps he felt Freud’s psychoanalysis (They were still friends in 1910.) sufficiently addressed how to reveal these parental unconscious ties.
Jung further defined the unconscious “conventional marriage” as a “purely instinctive choice” and “an instrument for maintaining the species” (p. 192, [CW 17, ¶ 328]). Here he separates the biological purpose of marriage from the psychological purpose of marriage, indicating the former is collective and impersonal.
In second half of life the marriage begins to breakdown moving from passion and duty to an intolerable burden, “a vampire that battens on the life of its creator” (p. 193, [CW 17, ¶ 331a]). This is an important metaphor worth amplifying. A vampire is the living dead, casting no shadow because it cannot live in the light. A vampire feeds on the blood of the living which Jung cast as its creator implying the conflict between consciousness and the unconsciousness. “This disunity with oneself begets discontent, and since one is not conscious of the real state of things one generally projects the reason for it upon one’s partner. A critical atmosphere thus develops, the necessary prelude to conscious realization” (p. 194, [CW 17, ¶ 331b]).
This might be a good place to introject that Jung was entering midlife when he wrote this essay and a year or so earlier had a mysterious relationship with a younger woman/patient that was the talk of the little town of Zurich (Bair, 2003).
The essay moves into a discourse about a typical marriage between the simple-minded, the contained, the anima and the mind of complexity, the container, the animus alluding to women and men, respectively. I would be remiss in my feminism to not mention the arrogant chauvinism in Jung’s subsequent discourse, but at this point I believe most of us can set aside his outdated cultural views without discounting the importance of his contribution.
His point is that the contained usually is better adapted to the marriage, wholly dependent yet swallowed up by the more complex partner. While the container has one foot in and one foot out of the marriage due to the fact that a large part of her personality is left unseen by the simple-minded. Jung posited the simple-minded partner is “grounded on a positive relationship to the parents” and the more complex partner is “hindered by a deep-seated unconscious tie the parents” (p. 194, [CW 17, ¶ 331b]) and “burdened with hereditary traits that are sometimes very difficult to reconcile” (p. 194, [CW 17, ¶ 331c]). About the container, the complex partner Jung wrote,
These people, having a certain tendency to dissociation, generally have the capacity to split off irreconcilable traits of character for considerable periods, thus passing themselves off as much simpler that they are; or it may happen that their many-sidedness, their very versatility, lends them a peculiar charm. Their partners can easily lose themselves in such a labyrinthine nature, finding in it such an a abundance of possible experiences that their personal interests are completely absorbed, sometimes in a not very agreeable way, since their sole occupation then consists in tracking the other through all the twists and turns of his character. (pp. 194-5, [CW 17, ¶ 331c]).
In this passage Jung recognizes the impact the container’s complexity has on the contained leading to a crack in the idealized security of the contained. The contained is then forced to see the personality she has relied on is not dependable causing her to turn inward and find security there. The container longs for unity and undividedness causing him to turn inward upon realizing he cannot find it outside of himself.
Jung infers that one cause of infidelity in marriage is this longing for unity and undividedness suggesting, “a dissociation is not healed by being split off, but by more complete disintegration” (p. 197, [CW 17, ¶ 334]). As one’s outer world becomes more and more disintegrated, “all the powers that strive for unity, all healthy desire for selfhood, will resist the disintegration, and in this way he will become conscious of the possibility of an inner integration” (p. 197, [CW 17, ¶ 334]). I cannot help viewing these passages as a pale explanation of his own infidelity. As such, it is difficult to separate Jung’s projections from his psychological wisdom in several passages within this essay.
The balance of the essay moves away from the source of marital strife as unconscious ties to the parents into a discussion of the archetypes of anima and animus with no bridge connecting these two sources.
Next the essay moves into a short explanation of the psychological stages of development. He posited that, “psychic life is a development that can easily be arrested on the lowest levels” (p. 201, [CW 17, ¶ 343]); and that few people “fall into deeper disharmony with themselves” (p. 201, [CW 17, ¶ 343]), unless that is, social security causes psychological insecurity leading first to neuroses and possibly to separation, divorce or another marital disorder.
The essay ends with the marriage in shambles, man reaching beyond his limits “becoming a fool and a menace” (p. 201, [CW 17, ¶ 344]) and nature [psyche] is praised as being aristocratic and esoteric. This is not Jung’s best writing since at this point in his life he had not achieved enough distance from his own marital strife.
Author
Topic: 
BLOG TOPIC