Skip navigation

Category Archives: On Consciousness & Unconsciousness

I think everyone should ask themselves this…

If we, as everyone tends to assume, are changeable; then what would have to be the core of our Being?

Let’s say the core of our being was decided. That we “knew” who we were….would we then be able to change?

If a tree were to become hard and inflexible in the middle…would it be able to bend and not break under a strong wind?

Really dislike people trying to figure me out…Ie. put me in a box from their limited experience and narrow consciousness.
If you really want to see someone, drop your Self; your ideas, your judgements, your built up experiences, assumptions….in short free yourself from your knowledge and conditioning. Then and only then can you see someone for who they really are…and not through the narrow limited window of what you think you know.

I had a general “feeling” one could say, that something like this has, is, and probably will happen so I decided to voice my dislike. I mean, doesn’t everyone share this feeling at least once?

Be like an Uncarved Block:

The Chinese word “Pu” is often translated as “the uncarved block,” and refers to a state of pure potential which is the primordial condition of the mind before the arising of experience. The Taoist concept of Pu points to perception without prejudice, i.e. beyond dualistic distinctions such as right/wrong, good/bad, black/white, beautiful/ugly.
But this should apply to everyone. If everyone attempted this and remained open it would help a lot in getting everyone to turn towards wholeness.

“There is truth, my boy. But the doctrine you desire, absolute, perfect dogma that alone provides wisdom, does not exist. Nor should you long for a perfect doctrine, my friend. Rather, you should long for the perfection of yourself. The deity is within you, not in ideas and books. Truth is lived, not taught.”
― Hermann Hesse, The Glass Bead Game

What I am attempting here is to bring something up into consciousness. To help it into our sight.

The core of our Being, unknowable, speaks and shows.

We don’t have to be stuck or limited, in the normal sense of the word. Holding onto the I, me, mine causing nothing but separation, division does not lead to the open field of play.

And in this sense, and pretty much only this sense, can “I” judge. Can I “dislike”. Because I put the Open first, and only because I put the open first, can I judge that which is not open and dislike it.

For I must always acknowledge, within myself, that I am unknowable, beyond words, thoughts, ideas, and that this extends to everyone, everything. So how can I, with my labels and ideas about you, ever really hold them to be true?

Wouldn’t I be selfish if I did? I mean, am I for the open? Do I want to play or do I want to rule?”

solitudinus

Advertisements

If we offend against “history” by removing documents and representations from their cultural context, we hope to compensate by correlating our archetypal investigation with a “psychohistory,” that is to say, with the stages in the development of the human psyche. Taking the development of consciousness as the decisive phenomena of human history, we arrive at an arrangement of the phenomena that does not, to be sure, coincide with the usual sequence of historical events, but makes possible the psychological orientation we require.

The old interpretation of history as a straight line, leading from prehistory through antiquity and the Middle Ages to modern times, is no longer accepted. It has given way to a historical consciousness that looks upon the various coexistent and successive cultures as individualities and not as links in a continuous chain. This view makes it possible to do justice to the individual character of each culture, but it is also a symptom of the decline of the ordering principle that had hitherto enabled European, Christian mankind to regard itself as the culmination and climax of human development. Once the idea of a universal mankind, embracing all the multiplicity of cultures, religions, and historical epochs, came within the scope of men’s minds, the naive Western view of history for which the Near East was quite secondary, while Asia, America, and Africa merited scarcely any attention, became untenable.

With the discovery of the collective unconscious as the common psychic foundation of mankind and with the insight that the relation of consciousness to the unconscious determines the character of a cultural phase or of a culture, modern man has gained a new point of orientation. The development of consciousness, from almost total containment in the unconscious in primitive man to the Western form of consciousness, has been glimpsed as the central factor in human history as a whole. For this orientation, the various cultures are merely phases in this basic trend of psychic life: the development of consciousness, which, without being the conscious goal of the individual cultures or of human culture as a whole, can be shown to be operative in every culture and age.

The tendency toward the light, which C. G. Jung once called human heliotropism, has in the long run proved stronger than all the forces of darkness that have striven to extinguish consciousness. In the broad view, epochs seemingly characterized by a regression of consciousness may almost always be recognized as transitional stages necessary to further development.

For the psychological study of human history, the primordial era refers then to the time when the unconscious was predominant and consciousness was weak. The modern era signifies a time of developed consciousness and of a productive bond between consciousness and unconscious. In other words, the normative development of the individual from containment in the unconscious to the development of consciousness presents an analogy to the collective development of mankind. In the system of coordinates representing psychohistorical development, later periods may therefore, as we said, represent an early state of consciousness and early epochs a mature level. Thus, for example, the relatively late monuments of the monolithic culture of England and France are psychologically much “earlier” than the Egyptian monuments that preceded them by thousands of years. And in an epoch of modern history, regressive collective tendencies may appear, which threaten to annul the arduously acquired development of the individual and the individual consciousness, and to bring back an earlier stage of human history.

Erich Neumann (The Great Mother, p. 89-91)

“A psychic depression, for example, is characterized by an abaissement du niveau mental, by a loss of libido in the consciousness, expressed in lack of enthusiasm and initiative, weakness of will, fatigue, incapacity for concentration and work, and in “negative” contents, such as thoughts of death and failure, weariness of life, suicidal leanings, and so on. Often, however, this psychic process also becomes visible; that is to say, it appears in the familiar symbolism of the light, the sun, the moon, or the hero being swallowed up by darkness in the form of night, the abyss, hell, monsters. A deep psychological analysis then reveals the irruption of an archetype, e.g., the Terrible Devouring Mother, whose psychic attraction is so great because of its energetic charge that the charge of the ego complex, unable to withstand it, “sinks” and is “swallowed up.”
A contrary movement may be represented symbolically as follows: the hero devoured by the monster cuts off a piece of its heart and so slays it. This symbolic process corresponds, on the image plane, to a conscious realization. A corresponding process takes place on the plane of consciousness when, through the “splitting up of the archetype,” the ego achieves a rise to consciousness; that is, consciousness comes to “understand” parts of the archetypal contents and incorporates them in itself. When this happens, the ego is strengthened and consciousness broadened. Consciousness not only recovers from the archetype the libido it had lost to it, but in addition takes new libido from the “split-off” or “cut-off” part of the archetype by “assimilating,” i.e., digesting, it.”
-Erich Neumann (The Great Mother, pg. 27)

Consciousness is always attached to masculine symbolism and in the arts some of the oldest symbols or representations of it are the knife and the lamp…the light shines and so shows, illuminates what is…the knife cuts, dissects, opens up…again revealing what is and allowing it to be integrated…digested. And, if one contemplates this they can come to a deeper understanding of Consciousness itself.

When moments like these occur, and as the tales speak, the “hero” can be male or female, has to be devoured, so to speak, we have to fall into the darkness. But in that darkness which is supposed to be scary and dangerous there arises consciousness, the lamp and the knife, and the ability to break down the experience and incorporate it into one self. So doing, in my experience, which I still go through from time to time, decreases the amount of time spent in that state and relieves it of its most “negative” characteristics. That is to say that while I will feel a need to be alone and may have thoughts of failure, suicidal leanings do not truly emerge or take over. Slowly I come back to myself and recover the vitality I had temporarily lost. However, I also do not run from the experience, I seek out a quiet space to be alone and allow myself to go through the process.

It also appears that these states can be aroused by lack of balance. As in a person being too Extraverted or too Introverted. For each have their specific dangers and therefore can lead to a devouring of consciousness or disintegration of the personality.

“The third type of hero does not seek to change the world through his struggle with inside or outside, but to transform the personality. Self-transformation is his true aim, and the liberating effect this has upon the world is only secondary. His self-transformation may be held up as a human ideal, but his consciousness is not directed in the narrower sense to the collective; for in him centroversion expresses a natural and fundamental trend of the human psyche, which is operative from the very beginning and which forms the basis not only of self-preservation, but of self-formation as well.
We have followed the birth of ego consciousness and of the individual all through the archetypal stages whose climax was reached in the hero’s fight with the dragon. In this development a constant increase of centroversion can be detected, tending toward consolidation of the ego and the stabilization of consciousness. It gives rise to a standpoint, indeed a rallying point, from which to combat the dangerous fascination of the world and the unconscious–a fascination that lowers the level of consciousness and disintegrates the personality. Both attitudes types, introversion as well as extroversion, can easily succumb to this danger. Centroversion, by building up the conscious ego and by strengthening the personality, tries to protect them and to counteract the danger of disintegration. In this sense, the growth of individuality and its development are mankind’s answer to the “perils of the soul” that threaten from within, and to the “perils of the world” that threaten from without. Magic and religion, art, science, and technics are man’s creative efforts to cope with this threat on two fronts. At the center of all these endeavors stands the creative individual as the hero, who in the name of the collective–even when he is a lonely figure standing out against it–molds it into shape by molding himself.”
– Erich Neumann (The Origin and History of Consciousness, p.220-1)

In this we can come to see the importance of the age old imperative to “know thyself.” As in to grasp the inner workings of your mind and consciousness. But also the need, the necessity, to build up things outside of one self. One, given more power over the other, leads to disintegration due to the weakness of the opposing and equally important other half. In today’s present we, generally, over value the extrovert. This can be seen in the overall powerful fear of being alone. It is easier to be with someone who takes us away from ourselves. And when we are young, as I experienced myself, it is painful and scary being alone. Now, of course, I almost enjoy it more than being with people (it changes, fluctuates). But people like that seem to be few and far between. And there is also, for the Introvert, the weakness that comes from spending too much time with one self and being weak or fearful when it comes to losing one self. As in, to loosen up and go with the flow as an Extrovert might say. But again, doesn’t the ancient Greek saying: Know Thyself, still speak to both the extro and introvert? Can you know thyself if you haven’t both lost your self to society and found your self forever renewed within?

Here is a passage from Jung’s Red Book and it deals with this problem:

“The tension of the future is unbearable in us. It must break
through narrow cracks, it must force new ways. You want to cast
off the burden, you want to escape the inescapable. Running away
is deception and detour. Shut your eyes so that you do not see the
manifold, the outwardly plural, the tearing away and the tempting.
There is only one way and that is your way; there is only one salvation
and that is your salvation. Why are you looking around for
help? Do you believe that help will come from outside? What is to
come is created in you and from you. Hence look into yourself. Do
not compare, do not measure. No other way is like yours. All other
ways deceive and tempt you. You must fulfill the way that is in you.

Oh, that all men and all their ways become strange to you!
Thus might you find them again within yourself and recognize
their ways. But what weakness! What doubt! What fear! You will
not bear going your way. You always want to have at least one foot
on paths not your own to avoid the great solitude! So that maternal
comfort is always with you! So that someone acknowledges you,
recognizes you, bestows trust in you, comforts you, encourages
you. So that someone pulls you over onto their path, where you
stray from yourself and where it is easier for you to set yourself
aside. As if you were not yourself! Who should accomplish your
deeds? Who should carry your virtues and your vices? You do not
come to an end with your life, and the dead will besiege you
terribly to live your unlived life. Everything must be fulfilled.
Time is of the essence, so why do you want to pile up the lived
and let the unlived rot?”
– Jung ( The Red Book, p.308)

solitudinus

A psychic depression, for example, is characterized by an abaissement du niveau mental, by a loss of libido in the consciousness, expressed in lack of enthusiasm and initiative, weakness of will, fatigue, incapacity for concentration and work, and in “negative” contents, such as thoughts of death and failure, weariness of life, suicidal leanings, and so on. Often, however, this psychic process also becomes visible; that is to say, it appears in the familiar symbolism of the light, the sun, the moon, or the hero being swallowed up by darkness in the form of night, the abyss, hell, monsters. A deep psychological analysis then reveals the irruption of an archetype, e.g., the Terrible Devouring Mother, whose psychic attraction is so great because of its energetic charge that the charge of the ego complex, unable to withstand it, “sinks” and is “swallowed up.”

A contrary movement may be represented symbolically as follows: the hero devoured by the monster cuts off a piece of its heart and so slays it. This symbolic process corresponds, on the image plane, to a conscious realization. A corresponding process takes place on the plane of consciousness when, through the “splitting up of the archetype,” the ego achieves a rise to consciousness; that is, consciousness comes to “understand” parts of the archetypal contents and incorporates them in itself. When this happens, the ego is strengthened and consciousness broadened. Consciousness not only recovers from the archetype the libido it had lost to it, but in addition takes new libido from the “split-off” or “cut-off” part of the archetype by “assimilating,” i.e., digesting, it.

-Erich Neumann (The Great Mother, pg. 27)

And now we come to the real distinguishing feature which essentially separates barbarism from culture; the only reason it cannot serve us as a guiding rod or for the determination of the beginning is that the documentary evidence is inadequate. It is the question: Where does mere living in the present, such as the savage does, cease, and where does life in the past and the present, i.e. differentiating comparison, begin? When does the mere present, devoid of history, end?

Jacob Burckhardt (Reflections on History, p. 5)

The great, to some extent ultimate, task posed here is that of understanding fear in all its forms as an instrument of the Self. Fear of the unknown and of all that is ego-alien turns out to be fear of the unknown aspects of “one-Self” and of “one-Self” as the unknown. In this sense the transformation process of becoming one-Self again and again embraces new unknowns, indeed, ever-new worlds of fear-inspiring unknowns.

In development through the archetypal stages, the individual must overcome fear with each transition from one phase to another, which, of course, always means the new phase of an existence unknown until that time. In this context we cannot take up the various ways in which men and women overcome fear, nor can we address the striking and as yet not well understood fact that the manner in which the ego overcomes fear is symbolically “genital,” i.e., is coordinated with the specific form of the genitals. Thus the male form of overcoming fear is active, intrusive, and pugnaciously heroic just as the typical form of fear appears as “castration” fear. Conversely, women’s fear is the fear of rape, and her way of overcoming fear is not activately heroic but passively heroic, accepting and incorporating it in her surrender to fear.

But always and independently of any of its forms, overcoming fear represents a specific form of integration in which something alien to the ego, some piece of Not-I, is recognized and realized as one’s own. Thus the man experiences the Terrible Feminine in its character of anima and transformation as belonging to his own psyche, just as he experiences the maternal and elementary character as “his own,” and only after assimilating all these aspects of the feminine will a man attain to his own authenticity as a human Self that is male and female simultaneously. Only when the “pure masculinity” of the patriarchy has been overcome through this process of transformation does a man overcome the fear in which his “pure masculinity” screened itself from the otherness that appeared symbolically as feminine. The same holds true for woman and her fear of the Masculine, which she has only concealed by her identification with the animus world demanded by the patriarchy.

In this experience of transformation the human individual becomes conscious of the relentless power of the Self, which recasts all phases of development as well as all ego-conquests of the outer and inner worlds into aspects of Self-realization that manifest from the very beginning as automorphism, as a tendency at work in the psyche. When the personal Self that manifests as a fear-inducing world assaulting the ego from within and from without is integrated, not only the one who fears and the one who overcomes fear but that which arouses fear can be seen as belonging together. Just as the good and evil gods in Bardo Thodol are one and turn out to be only projections of an underlying third thing, here we are led to experience the unity of Self and world. Destiny in its unity of inside and outside that arouses fear from without and from within turns out to belong to humankind and to be the living experience of the personal Self. World events appearing from outside as much as inner, fear-inducing phenomena of the psyche prove to be disguises of the Self. Inner and outer realities that at first appear strange and hence frightening are later experienced and “unmasked” as belonging to one’s very own authentic being, and thereby lose their foreign as well as their fearsome character. In this transformation the ego experiences that it belongs fundamentally to the Self, and that, in the form of the ego-Self axis, this “belongingness” has determined the entire development of personality on a new level. When the ego grasps the degree to which the Self directs fear and uses it as a “tool for transformation,” it also experiences itself embraced by the Self’s demand for transformation. In this way, however, the ego unmasks its own annihilation through fear and recognizes it as a process of negation brought about by something unfamiliar that proves itself to be one’s most essential nature, and one gains a paradoxical security in the Self that creatively forces the ego into continual transformation. As the ego becomes the transparent exponent of the Self, this agent of transformation, the Self, becomes one’s most treasured essence that remains fearlessly creative throughout all transformations. Only in this way does fearlessness arise for the ego that no longer clings to itself but rather in transformation surrenders and devotes itself to the Self as to its “own.” Thus the ego-Self axis becomes humankind’s guarantee of a creative existence, i.e., of an existence of transformation. Despite this ego-Self unity, however, the opposition persists in which the ego, as a smaller part, is subjected to a Self that is existentially superior to and more than a match for the ego. This means that the ego must necessarily continue to experience fear. Fear disappears only when the ego has come to that stage of the conquest of fear in which the human being’s sense of security lies in existing not only as an ego but, in a mysterious and numinous way, also as a Self that guides the personality through all ego-phases and turns all of the ego’s fear-constellations into stages of transformation in which existence reveals itself as an unending metamorphosis of aspects of the creative.

– Neumann (The Fear of the Feminine, p.278-281)

The marital tragedy of the individual is the arena to which the problem of the changed relationship between man and woman is brought for settlement by the collective–a problem which has a collective meaning and relevance transcending the marital conflicts of the individual. And similarly, the moral problem which drives the individual into neurotic sickness is at the same time an arena and an expression of the fact that the collective is not grappling with the problem of evil which is actually clamoring for its attention.

So long as certain specific values retain their living efficacy and power in the collective, the individual (unless he is an exceptional person) will have no problems in relation to matters of value. He will not fall sick because of problems arising out of these values, since institutional procedures exist for dealing with questions of value in a valid way. So long as and so far as the sacrament of marriage exists there will be no neuroses caused by the marriage problem, but only adultery and sin, punishment and pardon. The orientation remains valid even if the individual behaves invalidly.

But when the collective no longer possesses values, that is to say, when a crisis in values has occurred, the individual lacks a collective orientation. He falls sick because of a problem for which there is no longer a collective answer and a collective procedure for reaching a settlement. He then becomes involved in a conflict from which no institution is any longer in a position to set him free, but for which he must suffer and experience an individual solution in the living process of his personal destiny.

– Erich Neumann (Depth Psychology and a New Ethic, p. 31-32)

The average ego, the average individual, remains fixed in the
group, although in the course of development he is compelled
to give up the original security of the unconscious, to evolve a
conscious system, and to take upon himself all the complications
and sufferings which such development entails. For the primary
security of the unconscious he exchanges the secondary security
of the group. He becomes a group member, and the average
man spends at least half his life–the essential part of his devel-
opment–adapting to the group and allowing himself to be
molded by collective trends.

The role played by the collective in the human culture is decisive.
Society, with its conscious postulates, sets up an authority,
a spiritual tradition which, spoken or unspoken, forms the background
of education. The individual is molded by the collective
through its ethos, its customs, laws, morality, its ritual and religion,
its institutions and collective undertakings. When one
considers the original submergence of the individual in the collective,
one sees why all collective orientations are so binding
and are accepted without question.
Besides this tendency of the collective to form average members
and to educate the ego up to the cultural norm represented
by the elders, there is another tendency which is in the direction
of the Great Individual.

For the group member, the Great Individual is primarily the
carrier of projections. The unconscious psychic wholeness of
the collective is experienced in the person of the Great Individual,
who is at once the group self and the unconscious self of
each member. What is present in every part of the group as the
unconscious creative totality of the psyche, namely the self, becomes
visible in the Great Individual or, at a higher level, is
actualized in his life. The collective parts are still childishly dependent,
with no ego center, no responsibility or will of their
own to mark them off from the collective, so that the Great Individual
is regarded as the directive force, as the very center of
life, and is institutionally honored as such.

It is therefore completely inadmissible to reduce him to, or
derive him from, the personal father figure. We find that, just
as in the early history of man the Great Individual becomes the
carrier for the projection of archetypal images such as the self,
the mana figure, the hero, and the father archetype, so also in
the course of ontogenetic development the figure representing
authority, who in our civilization is the father, frequently becomes
the carrier for these projections. But it is by no means
only the father archetype that is projected upon him; very often
it is quite another image, for instance that of the magician, the
wise old man, the hero or, conversely, of the devil, death, and
so on.

The Great Individual who breaks away from the anonymity
of the primordial collective is, on the heavenly plane, the god-
figure, while on the earthly plane he is the medicine man, chief,
and god-king. Sociological and religious developments are here
closely bound together; they correspond to psychic changes, and
the psychic differentiation by which the ego detaches itself from
the undifferentiated unconscious is expressed in sociological
changes as well as in a theological differentiation of man’s view
of the world,

-Erich Neumann (OaHoC, p.426-8)

We come now to an important criterion. Many genuinely
“great” men are distinguished from these lower stages by the
fact that their conscious mind actively participates in the process
and adopts a responsible attitude toward it. What characterizes
the hypnotist who is hypnotized by the unconscious is the banality
of his mind, its lack of problems. For, if completely swamped
by the invading content, consciousness becomes incapable of
taking up any counterposition whatsoever, but is carried away
and possessed by it to the point of identification.

The Great Individual, on the other hand, who really is a great
man in the sense of being a great personality, is characterized
not only by the fact that the unconscious content has him in its
grip, but by the fact that his conscious mind also has an active
grip on the content. It is immaterial whether his assimilation of
the content takes the form of creation, or of interpretation, or of
action; for common to all these is the responsible participation
of the ego in coming to terms with the invading content, and not
only its participation, but its ability to take up an attitude.
Only then does the Great Individual become a creative human
being. The action no longer rests with the invading transpersonal
alone, but with the centroversion operating through
ego consciousness; in other words, there is now a creative total
reaction in which the specifically human qualities of ego formation
and conscious elaboration are preserved.

This category of Great Individuals serves as a model for the
development of individuality in humankind generally. The individual
fate of the hero–and the creative Great Individual is
indeed a hero–may be the exception, but he is also the exemplar
of a process which subsequently affects all individuals in varying
degree.

– Erich Neumann ( OaHoC, p. 425-6)

The collective unconscious of the group manifests itself by
taking possession of the individual, whose function it is, as an
organ of the group, to convey to it the contents of the unconscious.
Such manifestations are determined by the situation of
the group and by the way in which the collective unconscious
is constellated.

We have, therefore, a whole hierarchy of phenomena revealing
the deeper layers of the psyche, and a corresponding hierarchy
of revelation bearers who appear as Great Individuals. In
the main, two things distinguish the revelation bearers from one
another: the first is the degree of conscious participation in the
phenomena of revelation; the second is the scope of the emergent
contents.

The lowest place in this hierarchy is occupied by the Great
Individual who is only a passive carrier of projections, that is to
say, one whose conscious mind and personality stand in no kind
of relationship to what is projected upon him. An instance of
this is the widespread institution of symbolic victims who have
to represent the god to be sacrificed. They may be chosen on account
of their beauty, as in the case of fertility goddesses, or
because they have some symbolic and for us quite accidentalsign
on their bodies, for instance they may be albinos or possess
special stigmata like the witch marks of the Middle Ages. Often
the symbol bearers are purely institutional, as with the sacrifice
of war prisoners in ancient Mexico. This form, which shows no
direct relationship between the personality and the contents
projected upon it, is based on religious institutions with their
retinue of priests, prophets, sorcerers, etc., who decide on the
victim with the help of divination and other practices, and who
are, therefore, the operative factors in the situation. But even
here there is an active projection of an unconscious group-content
upon an individual who thereby becomes a Great Individual,
as is evident from the numerous dispensations which show him
to be one “exempt,” to whom the customary taboos no longer
apply.

On a rather higher level stands the individual whose personality
is possessed directly by the unconscious content spirit,
demon, God even when his conscious mind does not participate
in its assimilation or interpretation. This passive hypnosis by
the unconscious is a very common phenomenon which is well
known as shamanism and can be observed in the possession
states of practically all medicine men, prophets, and so forth.
To this category also belongs the madman, in whom the transpersonal
forces of the collective unconscious and of the spiritual
world manifest themselves without the participation of the conscious
mind and the ego. As we know, among primitive peoples,
unless correspondingly gifted “psychopathic** personages are
present, this state may be artificially induced by driving a member
of the tribe mad and thus making him a medicine man. In
this way he becomes the mouthpiece of the transpersonal and
conveys to the group the contents it needs, which have been
activated in the collective unconscious.

This stage has many forms and variants, for passive possession
by a content of the collective unconscious may lead to identification
with it, to inflation, but also to a “symbolic life” in which
the content is actually “represented” in reality, as is partially
the case among the Hebrew prophets and manifestly so wherever
the life of a divine figure is “imitated.”

Again, the temporary leader of a group, who is not related to
it as the permanent leader but has only accomplished something
outstanding in a unique situation and is therefore a Great Individual
for the moment only, is a typical example of this connection
between unconscious possession and the importance of
personality for the group.

The mediumistic Fuhrer figure, the hypnotized hypnotist,
likewise falls into the lower category of medicine men, for whom
the daemonism of the Great Individual is simply a means for
the self-daemonization of the mass, and whose significance as
an individual personality is submerged, like that of the madman,
in his function as a mere mouthpiece of the unconscious.

 

-Erich Neumann (OaHoC, p. 423-5)