The Nature of the Psyche




Everything originates in the psyche. The outer world is derived from the inner world.
Therefore the emphasis in this work is on the psyche.
It can also be said here that the psyche shares with the physical body the human being’s emphasis on the importance of its well-being. Nothing is more important to the human being than physical and psychological health.
The key is to understand life to make sense of it to one’s own satisfaction. I can only do this via the psychological route. It is also worth noting what Clarke said in his book outlining the psychology of C. G. Jung, as this gives the reader a sense of how one might go about trying to make sense of the world (or don’t go about it as the case may be). Clarke writes that when it comes to psychology, the psyche (the object of investigation)

“is identical with the person investigating it. In such a case there is no independent or neutral standpoint from which we can carry out our investigations, no Archimedian point’, to use a favourite image of Jung’s, to act as a firm and independent point of reference from which to study the psyche”.

(Clarke, 1992, p26)


Consistent with C. G. Jung’s work, the psychology outlined in this essay is based on


EXPERIENCE is the Epistemological roots of this work’. Epistemology is concerned with what one bases their knowledge on.

EMPIRICAL This work is based on Empiricism’ not speculative philosophy. This whole essay is empirical, i.e. based on experience, observation, experiment. Being Empirical also means being objective.

OBJECTIVE: This work is not based on personal prejudice or bias. Nevertheless, there is subjectivity because no matter how hard the person tries to be entirely objective, they cannot help but express their SUBJECTIVE side. This is because the human being is both a member of the collective human race and a unique individual. This subjectivity is like an accidental projection or unconscious projection. It can be seen in autobiographies where the author tries to be objective. Yet two objective autobiographies on the same person, but by two different authors, still leave obvious traces of the subjectivity of the author which is evident by the different colouration of the two texts.

EXPERENTIAL: Experiential means having to do with experience and observation.
This work is experiential.

PHENOMENOLOGICAL: Phenomenology is about the study of things as they are perceived. This work is phenomenological.

Psychological Reality is precisely that i.e. real. And when many people have the same experience, repeated observation is close to scientific. (i.e. it’s as much objective as subjective). One may argue that psychological reality isn’t literally scientific because it can’t be subjected to laboratory tests. Nevertheless it is as good as.

This work then is based on experience, not theory, not ideology, not speculation, and so on. Things are forced onto the psyche and have to be lived through. For example one must go through suffering, not round it. The latter equates to just escaping life for the time being and is self-defeating because its putting off growth and strength. Such a person needs to develop a stronger ego in order to stop whimpering in the face of life.

Part 1 of this work is simply the basics of the psyche. I would call this the basics of whats inside’. (it’s a necessary part of this work but is nevertheless, akin to a simple introductory level).
Part 2 expands on ego strengthening and health.
Part 3 says almost all that needs to be said on health, and clarifies the perspectives outlined in previous chapters regarding the inner psyche.
Part 4 outlines psychological stages of development and expands still further on health.
Part 5 articulates what is necessary for health regarding the social world or social life.


EGO CONSCIOUSNESS (See also Parts 2 & 4)

The ego is at the centre of consciousness. It is by no means the be-all-and-end-all of the psyche. On the contrary ego consciousness is only capable of holding a tiny amount of data in mind in a given moment. The ego then is like an ISLAND in the sea. Both conscious and unconscious are important see Part 3, The Psyche as a Dialogue between Conscious and Unconscious and the Dreamworld as a Process


The unconscious is best thought of as an intermingled mixture of personal and collective unconsciousness. Meanwhile there is no demarcation between consciousness and unconsciousness.
The unconscious (as said above) can be symbolized by the SEA as it equates to the vast majority of the psyches contents.
PERSONAL: The main aspects of the personal unconscious are personal memories including much that is seemingly, but not, forgotten’. i.e. not’ forgotten to the database that is the unconscious. An often cited example is of a piece of music that you once liked but haven’t heard nor consciously thought about for several years. Yet within a mere few seconds of hearing the first few notes of it, you know exactly what the song is. An everyday example of the personal unconscious is forgetting someone’s name e.g. a famous celebrity. At first you try and will the name into consciousness. Often that doesn’t work and you stop thinking about it. This seemingly relaxes the psyche and the name pops into your head as if someone went away into the database and fetched it for you!
The personal conscious psyche can (to a limited degree) repress the unconscious. So to give an extreme example, a mother whose child has died in an accident will try and repress the flashbacks whilst she is awake. She will probably only have limited success and will feel dreadful. But when she sleeps she will get it 10 times worse as it is consciousness that sleeps hence the repressing’ part of the psyche sleeps (the defence sleeps) so the flashbacks are experienced fully. Hence she wakes up screaming and sweating and so forth. Likewise a child tries to repress the fear of a horror movie with only a little success. But when he finally gives up trying to stay awake with blankets covered over his eyes he sees the spooks in all their glory in his nightmares. Hence mothers say think happy thoughts’ before sending their child to bed.

The Personal Unconscious also consists of any complexes that one may have.

Complexes are psychic fragments which have split off owing to traumatic influences or certain incompatible tendencies. As the association experiments prove, complexes interfere with the intentions of the will and disturb the conscious performance: they produce disturbances of memory and blockages in the flow of association, they appear and disappear according to their own laws, they can temporarily obsess consciousness, or influence speech and action in an unconscious way. In a word, complexes behave like independent beings, a fact especially evident in abnormal states of mind. In the voices heard by the insane they even take on a personal ego character like that of the spirits who manifest themselves through automatic writing and similar techniques’.
(Jung, The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, Coll Works Vol 8, p121)

Explaining that complexes touch on very sensitive areas of the patient’s psyche, areas that the individual is hiding from him/herself, Jung states

In many cases the aroused complex is by no means approved by the patient, who even tries in every way to deny, or at least to weaken, the existence of the complex. Since it is therapeutically important to induce the patient to self-recognition, i.e., to a recognition of his repressed’ complexes, one must take this fact into careful consideration, and proceed with corresponding care and tact’.
(Jung, CW 2, para 1351)

A complex can thrust the ego aside and a strong complex possesses all the characteristics of a separate personality. We are therefore, justified in regarding a complex as somewhat like a small secondary mind, which deliberately drives at certain intentions which are contrary to the conscious intentions of the individual’.
(Jung, CW 2, para 1352)

The Persona is also part of the Personal Unconscious. The Persona is symbolized by the MASK. This is because the persona is the mask that we wear in social life to adapt to the social world. For example if we were at a social gathering and we didn’t really like the people that were there, we would (for as long as we were there) use our persona. At least this is what the vast majority of people do. Not many people for example in such a social gathering would reply quite fat’ to a woman who asked how do you think I look’? This is the case even if one truly believed that quite fat’ was the best description.

People are often unaware of the psychogenesis of what they say and think. This takes this description of the psyche into the area of SHADOW’ (the symbolism there is self-explanatory) and Projection’. Here the shadow refers to the entire unconscious. (not just the dark. Some people for instance are conscious that they are bad. What they are unconscious of is their light!) Projection is a very important area and it connects to much of this work. So keep it in consciousness!
Humans need health or MEANING’. Meaning covers so much. It is unconsciously projected into the heavens (religion), the stars (UFO’s), into shopping Malls (Shopping Mall as Cathedral), into economics (worshipping the mighty dollar), onto celebrity (pop star or movie star as a god or hero).
The forementioned e.g. the shopping mall, celebrity etc (on their own) are not fulfilling. There are obviously different levels of embracing of them from escapism to possession I come to these issues later and in my essay titled WorldView’). Hence I am going to swiftly move on here to discussing unconscious projection’ in the fields of knowledge. For example politics’ can be discussed in a positive or negative psychological way.
Positive Politics = Meaning Projection.
Negative Politics = Shadow Power Projection. And/or Shadow Projection. (i.e. projecting one’s demons onto politicians, rival ideologies etc).
Often of course meaning’ drifts into being power’.
Some people claim that they never psychologically project. But they forget the examples that I gave a moment ago (e.g. shopping mall, mighty dollar). Moreover, everyone has a shadow. It tends to be unconscious. When made conscious one is only containing’ their shadow, it does not cease to exist. However what about those who really are apathetic about everything? Those who are apathetic about everything will be neurotic. Their mind will not rest. Their psychic energy will desire an outlet. An unconscious outlet is a million miles away from ideal but is preferable to no outlet. Those who are apathetic about everything are in effect, repressing their desire to not be apathetic about everything. That is why they are neurotic.
People quite simply do not realize what they are doing. They do not realize that their politicking is about meaning or power and ditto religion. They do not realize that UFOs are about inner meaning, that shopping is about meaning and that being in awe of an A-List celebrity is about meaning. Its like the individual has cut out a piece of their mind, given it to other people and then become affected by whatever they do. Hence you lose control over meaning. You lose control over your own psyche. This loss of control over one’s own psyche is not done to the extent that primitives lost control over their psyche. A modern person may lose one’ piece of their psyche. It maybe a sizeable’ piece but all the same its just one’ piece. Primitives, on the other hand, projected ALL OF THEIR PSYCHE OUTWARDS and therefore lost all control of inner meaning. Nothing in the outer world happened by chance, everything outside affected them for better or for worse’. THIS IS WHY THE VANQUISHING OF PROJECTIONS’ AND THE PROGRESSIVE INCREASE IN CONSCIOUSNESS’ EQUATES TO PSYCHOLOGICAL EVOLUTION. (see especially parts 3 & 4)

The psychological principle of differentiation’ is something that is unconscious in many people for example the distinction between thinking and feeling. Making the anima conscious is also essential. (see below)

I regard Psychology as laying down the ground-rules of the other fields of knowledge. Consciousness is the roots. (see my essay titled WorldView’) Psychology tells people in the various fields of knowledge to ensure that they are not power-tripping or shadow projecting. It also reminds us to beware that we may be just projecting meaning out of ourselves onto the external world. For example many people who are passionate about the prospects of a Science Fiction come Science Fact type of future are merely projecting meaning out into the future. But what about today? We have to remember that we all want the same thing physical and psychological health. If we are in a field of knowledge and just want people to see us as powerful’ and therefore use our discipline as a tool/sword’ then how pathetic is that?

Our ordinary life still swarms with [projections]. You can find them spread out in the newspapers, in books, rumours and ordinary social gossip. All gaps in our actual knowledge are still filled out with projections. We are still so sure we know what other people think or what their true character is. We are convinced that certain people have all the bad qualities we do not know in ourselves or that they practice all those vices which could, of course, be our own If you imagine someone who is brave enough to withdraw all these projections, then you get an individual who is conscious of a pretty thick shadow He has become a serious problem to himself, as he is now unable to say that they do this or that, they are wrong and must be fought against Such a man knows that whatever is wrong in the world is in himself’.
(Jung, C.W. 11, p83)

Today I read an article where someone who was signed up to Jungian Psychology was arguing the case for the Shadow’ to the interviewer. The interviewer argued back that theres enough dark’ in the world, using obscenities about the administration in the White House. In doing so the interviewer had unconsciously projected out the psychic disposition in the human being for prejudice and hatred and had therefore made the case for unconscious projection better than someone who was conscious of it ever could. As Jung says above Our ordinary life still swarms with [projections].

Evil-doers’ in the true sense are almost inevitably persons acting under one or several compulsions of an unconscious nature. It is thus their very lack of self-knowledge of their own evil, that forces them to do antisocial and evil acts. Unconscious content not brought into the Gnosis of consciousness is forced to live itself out by way of compulsive acts performed by the ego’.
(Hoeller, 2002, p42)

In primitive psychology (as said above) they project all of their psyche out onto the external world and are therefore very vulnerable to the outer world. Here I quote the Jungian psychologist Marie Louise Von Franz who draws a precise distinction between projection and participation mystique.

Franz writes that in a society in which the gods are still psychologically alive the necessity has not yet arisen for the withdrawal of the projection. So there you still have a state of archaic identity. [i.e. a participation mystique]. It is only because we do not believe, say, in the gods of the Shilluk of the Upper Nile that we may now speak of projection’. (Franz in Segal, 1997, p242).

The psyche and sex sounds like a best-selling book. Psyche and Sex are certainly what the ANIMA is about. Ones anima figure image is usually in modern clothing! Anyway, the Analytical Psychologist, Polly Young-Eisendrath, defines the Anima as follows

The image of a woman or feminine figure in a man’s dreams or fantasies. Related to his eros’ principle. It reflects the nature of his relationships, especially with women. Described by Jung as the archetype of life’. Problematic relationship is often caused by unconscious identification with the anima or projection of the anima into a partner resulting in a feeling of disappointment with the real person (see possession). By extension, also used to describe the unconscious, feminine side of mans personality. Anima figures are not depictions of actual women but are fantasies coloured by emotional needs and experiences. Characteristic anima figures: goddesses, famous women, mother figures, young girls, prostitutes, witches and female creatures’.
(Eisendrath, 1997, p314)
(Note there is also supposedly animus which is figure of Man’ in woman. But that is for a woman to comment on. My psychology is checked with experience!)

Possession: Describes the condition in which a person is dominated by a powerful psychological complex: e.g. a man who is consumed by a fascination with an anima figure’.
(Eisendrath, p318)

IS THERE SUCH THINGS AS PRIMORDIAL AND UNIVERSAL ARCHETYPES? AND IS THERE A COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS? SEE The Psyche as a Dialogue between Conscious and Unconscious and the Dreamworld as a Process’ (PART 3).


Carl Jung described the goal of his psychology as individuation, a kind of self-realisation. Jung defines the individual who has individuated as someone that

detach[es] consciousness from the object so that [he] no longer places the guarantee of his happiness, or of his life even, in factors outside himself, whether they be persons, ideas or circumstances, but comes to realize that everything depends on whether he holds the treasure or not. If the possession of that gold is realized, then the centre of gravity is in the individual and no longer in an object’

(Jung, CW: 18, para 377)
Jung’s beliefs (expressed above) are certainly agreed with here. Jung would be the first to accept that the mere reading of his words, no matter how wise, could result in individuation or self-realisation. This is because one must become conscious oneself. Intellectually understanding a theory is not the same thing as winning the treasure. Thinkers like Jung and Buddha can only point the way.


Footnote: What does Analytical Psychology do for me? I check it off with my experiences. Often I have an empathic connection. The positive implication of that is that it helps me understand psychological life. This understanding’ is crucial’ for my psychological health.




Part 2 of this work is brief. It focuses on Ego Strengthening and health both of which are expanded on in Parts 3 & 4.


Human beings need to be active in thought. (and obviously in a physical way too). If we rest we may momentarily feel comfortable. But then we stagnate and then we regress. We slip into unconsciousness and participation mystique with whatever is closest to hand. That is one path to neurosis. Indeed, it is a path to schizophrenia.
The heading of this article is Ego Strengthening’. The forementioned writing is relevant to this for the following reason. Primitives projected everything out of themselves. They didn’t need much ego. Indeed ego consciousness was anathema to them. Nothing happened by chance. Life happened to them, they didn’t make things happen. We have seen through the absurdity of such a psychology. This isn’t to say that we can’t slip into neurosis, it isn’t to say that we never project out inner psychic contents. And it isn’t even to say that modern people never slip into participation mystique. Unfortunately we do. But in general we know that all of that is unhealthy. Our ability to strengthen our ego is connected to our evolution beyond primitive participation mystique. Modern adults (as opposed to primitives and children) can set goals and stick to them, see them through.
Ego strengthening is an overcoming of weakness. But it doesn’t mean egotism’. Egotism masquerades as strength but it is weak artificiality. (a mask) and is tied to the object. (participation mystique). Such a person isn’t psychologically free they are possessed by the object.
In a way strength is irrelevant. Strengthening’ here means overcoming weakness’. Ego strengthening then (looked at in a social psychology sense) equates to social adaptation’. It was the psychologist Alfred Adler who came up with the term Inferiority Complex’. Adler rightly said that overcoming this inferiority complex (or ego weakness’) required socialisation’ (social adaptation). In other words social psychological health is about social-assuredness as opposed to power tripping. Social assuredness isn’t connected to weakness or power. It’s neither. It’s just social health as opposed to weakness and ego-inflation which are neurotic.



Both the introvert and extravert run the risk of psychological illness. The introvert may become too introverted apathetic and world-renouncing. This failure to embrace life is a repression and is neurotic. In extremes it is schizophrenic. Meanwhile the extravert may become too extraverted. Such an individual is entirely unconscious of their shadow and may develop participation mystique due to being enticed by the object. Such a person is psychologically possessed.




One could say that the way to health is by caring for the mind, body, having healthy social relationships and having a healthy worldview. But no one would argue with that. Whilst pointing the way is about the most that one person can do, it is nevertheless the case that a little more pointing is necessary than simply saying little more than Mind, Body, Spirit’!

The person must differentiate oneself from others (hence more consciousness) and establish a meaningful worldview. (i.e. a worldview that equates to making sense of the world, their life, existence and so forth). The former aspect, differentiation isn’t anti social and isn’t arrogant. The reason that it isn’t those things is because differentiation is required in order to become more conscious. You see, take physical health as an analogy. In physical health if we do something that makes us feel physically worse we do whatever makes us feel physically better in order to put our health right. Likewise in psychological life if ones thoughts are making us feel bad then we should start thinking differently until we feel right. It’s the same logic as physical health so it is an analogy with real substance to it. Of course in psychological life a great many people fail to follow this logic through so they remain in a feeling of never feeling right. But this is all why differentiation isn’t anti-social and isn’t arrogant. It cant be those things because the reason why one differentiates is for health. Of course, if one differentiates out of a motivation of power then one isn’t really differentiating at all. Such a person is tied to the person or people that they are trying to have power over. That is anti-social and arrogant. But its as if there were something in nature that makes them pay. Because they do pay by never quite feeling right. Many of those who try and have power over other people are people who suffer from an inferiority complex in life. But their solution to their inferiority complex is misguided and they never really feel right. An analogy can be drawn here with an imperfect medicine for a physical illness one that has serious side-effects.
The psyche must be allowed to flow, hence the vanquishing of repressions, possessions, etc.


(Dreamworld = The Never Resting Unconscious)

Whilst writing this essay I had a minor problem with the Jungian concept of Archetype’. It wasn’t a big problem I just struggled
(a) for an exact definition
(b) the relevance of the archetype

This problem resolved itself to my satisfaction as follows

There is an unconscious all humans dream. That is for certain. It is undeniable. The unconscious never rests. It’s always trying to break through. Hence a woman that has lost a child in a tragic accident will try and stop the unconscious flashbacks exploding into her conscious mind. She isn’t consciously willing the flashbacks. But she has to use all of her energy just to keep them contained. She may be largely unsuccessful. But not as unsuccessful as when she sleeps. When the human being sleeps their conscious mind sleeps the defences are down. The unconscious on the other hand NEVER RESTS and what it was trying to bring forth’ before hand will now be brought forth in exactly the way that it was trying before. Hence the woman (in her dreams) sees the flashbacks in a clear unrepressed way. Hence all that fear she was repressing is given to her full whack and she wakes up screaming, sweating, crying, anxiously breathing. The psyche is a conscious/unconscious dialogue but often the dialogue breaks-down. This is a classic example when understandably the woman tries to repress the unconscious flashbacks of an accident that led to the death of her child.
I went for that example because it is an extremely powerful’ example. When you were reading what I was saying I believe that most readers will have vaguely imagined a woman that they would like’ in order to establish a moral and vague sympathy for this made-up figure. In a sense then you will have (vaguely) brought in a personal and cultural emphasis to this. Jung (with his archetypes hypothesis) would say that the reader brought into play the anima archetype’ i.e. at a vague level of awareness the reader will have imagined the woman to be their own inner personification of the female which is always a woman to admire. In my view this brings culture into play. And that is


Footnote: The psychologist Arnold Mindell has similar beliefs on the unconscious psyche, i.e. as a process’ and as akin to dreamworld’. See his website

Footnote: The deep unconscious is also timeless and spaceless. Hence the person can experience precognition, telepathy and synchronistic phenomena. Time and Space relativity holds true both for the inner and outer worlds and are obviously connected. (See e.g. Jung, C, & Pauli, W, Atom and Archetype: The Pauli/Jung Letters (Publisher: Princeton University Press, Year: 2001)

what Jungs archetypes are for me. Let me make it clear. ALL HUMANS DREAM. And the UNCONSCIOUS STAYS WITH US EVERY SECOND OF OUR LIVES I.E.
THE UNCONSCIOUS NEVER RESTS. Jungs archetypes are supposed to be fixed’, rigid’, motionless’. I SAY THAT THE ARCHETYPES APPEAR THAT WAY BECAUSE THEY ARE POWERFUL DUE TO CULTURE. HENCE I CHANGE JUNGS ARCHETYPES OF THE COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS TO UNCONSCIOUS DREAMWORLD. Yes its collective but that’s as obvious as A-B-C. All humans dream just like we are all born with 2 eyes. Jung is right to emphasise the importance of the unconscious. Where I diverge is with his belief in the archetypes as primordial and universal. I regard these as emerging from the conscious psyche and therefore

Impacting on the unconscious in the same way that the unconscious impacts on the conscious in the forementioned death of the womans child.

The human species started in DREAMWORLD, everyone dreams, including
psychotics and like modern day psychotics it was imperative that the human species imposed ORDER on the psyche. Hence CONSCIOUS-UNCONSCIOUS DIALOGUE. Out of this dialogue I observe that some DREAM-ASPECTS come to the fore-front. For example the ANIMA, THE HERO. BUT I AM CERTAIN THAT THEY ARE CULTURAL. BECAUSE THE PSYCHE IS A DIALOGUE BETWEEN CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS AND THE DREAM WORLD IS A PROCESS THAT IS HOW WE EXPERIENCE IT.
Having said all of that the human can only make sense of the world from within the context of psychological humanness in the same way that a canine can only make sense of the world from the inbred sense perceptions of the dog. Therefore there is some kind of LIMITING factor in the human being which whilst limiting’ is a HIGHER level of sense perceptions than any other animal that we know of. What it is that gives us a psychologically higher potential than other animals and an ability to become more and more conscious (as opposed to stagnated as other animals are) is of interest to those in the Jungian community. But it is unknown at present.





Note that many people are best described as somewhere in-between the stages. E.g. evolving out of stage 1 into stage 2 but not really one or the other.


Infant in unconscious participation (similar to primitive psychology)


Individual projects a lot e.g. petty teenage girls. The individual at this stage is sensitive to many things that trigger complexes. At this stage the individual has many complexes. And she has an active psyche’ but it is subjected to dissociation due to the complexes that go with the projections. Such a person has an undifferentiated psyche and is merely trying to differentiate but has not done so yet. This is clear from the sensitivity she has to the thoughts and feelings of others.
The psyche at stage 2 is immaturely active’.


At this stage a Strong Ego Consciousness’ has been attained. Much unconscious projection has been vanquished (due to it being unnecessary and unhealthy). With many projections vanquished many complexes are also vanquished as they go together. A person that has differentiated and projects is a literal impossibility. (A contradiction in terms).
At this stage the individual has an active psyche’ and the strong ego ensures that it stays that way.
The psyche at stage 3 is maturely active’.


Stage 4 is extremely difficult to achieve and could be said to be the psychological equivalent of utopia. At this highest level one ceases to unconsciously project, vanquishes participation mystiques, has no complexes, has attained social adaptation, is differentiated, is highly conscious moment to moment, has a strong ego but due to vanquishing of participation mystiques cannot possibly be ego inflated as ego-inflated people are tied to the object.

Analytical Psychologists tend to believe that we are not masters in our own house. In other words we do not control our inner world. To believe that we possess our psyche is akin to a fish being convinced that it possesses the sea. It is the case that Free will means the person doing gladly what they have to do. This isn’t easy. It requires HARD PSYCHOLOGICAL WORK’ in order to know (i.e. to be conscious of) what it is that one has to do. So ok, we can choose not to do what we have to do in order to be psychologically healthy in the same way that we can choose not to eat and not to drink and not to take any physical exercise. In all cases (psychological and physical) the outcome is ILLNESS (See health: Part 3)


(1) Simply moving on from weakness consciously thinking of oneself as strong.

(2) Standing up for oneself when situations threaten to bring back the old weak you’.

(3) Vanquishing of projections. This is because projections invariably are inextricably linked with complexes.

(4) Embracing the social world. This is evidence to oneself that one has a strengthened ego and doesn’t need to hide from outer life.

One of the psychological keys then, seems to be to advance the ego without advancing unconscious projection. If the person advances unconscious projection then they advance complexes. When complexes are triggered they damage the ego. It should be said that if one follows the will of their psyche then they will not unconsciously psychologically project anyway. They will differentiate and make sense of their life to their own satisfaction. (See health: Part 3)


Introjection of the shadow: Rare but an absolute necessity.

Mild projection: Common and necessary for being psychologically active.

Mild unconscious participation: Common. Indistinguishable from Mild projection’. The subtle difference equates to an irrelevant academic question.

Shadow projection: Common and damaging. The more unconscious one is of their shadow the more poisonous and deadlier the projection. The fiction classic Jeckyll and Hyde illustrates this very well. Complexes attach to unconscious projections. That is the price one pays for unconscious projection.

Participation Mystique: Fairly common. Possession of the subject by the object. Absolute lack of differentiation.

Differentiation: Fairly common. Differentiation is an absolute psychological necessity. If one is possessed by the object you are unfree your health is out of your hands.


Shadow projection cannot be overemphasized. Everyone shadow projects. (whether against celebrities, neighbours, family members, people that one knows, politicians etc) And if you ask “What about those people that have become conscious of their shadow’? Such people contain’ their shadow. Its still there in their psyche. They cant give their shadow the death penalty. All they can do is be conscious of it, thus containing it. Such a person feels better because they can feel and experience in themselves what before they thought was in others. This is the preferable and direct way of understanding the existence of the shadow. The indirect way is less preferable but just might establish a platform to jump to the preferred way of understanding the shadow. The indirect way means intellectually understanding the shadow. For example everyone has a gripe with someone. They think that if only they could vanquish that person from their lives then all would be well hence there is no such thing as shadow projection. But such a person would only transfer the projection of the shadow onto someone else if the demon person was vanquished. We project out what we do not understand in ourselves. And none of us understand our dark side. Hence it must be the other persons fault. But when we become conscious of our shadow we have contained it. We cannot give it the death penalty. It is part of who we are. But by becoming conscious of it we feel better precisely because we now contain it, it isn’t the demon trying to hurt us. Thus whilst we
cannot give the shadow in ourselves the death penalty we can at least imprison it.


Analytical Psychologists call conscious projection’ conscious introjection or conscious recollection but there is nothing wrong with conscious projection. Conscious projection is a kind of acknowledgement of escapism. There is no getting to the roots of the psychogenesis so it is not conscious like shadow introjection but is not unconscious projection either. Therefore I call it mild conscious projection’ or mild unconscious participation’. It cant be unconscious projection’ as I normally assume it because one isn’t possessed by the object one is conscious of the projection. You see I have to bring these psychological states into my mind and I have to write about them here because RELATIVITY demands that this middle ground is acknowledged. These mind-states are more common than the more deadly participation mystique and more common than introjection of the shadow. The psyche must have a large degree of conscious projection because it needs to be ACTIVE. (just like the body needs to be active). But the projections must be at least mildly conscious’ so that they:

– Are not harmful and are understood
-Do not attach a complex’

Relatively speaking one could say that regarding projection
the person must only ever consciously’ psychologically project. It is also essential to establish a strong ego and is a prerequisite for establishing a conscious worldview based on making sense of the world to one’s own satisfaction and in connection with all of this the principle of differentiation must be adhered to. The psyche demands all of this for basic health. (see footnote: 1)


1: But as said, this is a relative spectrum. Mild unconscious escapism that doesn’t go so far as attaching to the object is practically the same thing as conscious projection and is normal. (see my essay titled WorldView’)

I think that the news’ is unconscious projection par excellence. i.e. both often in content and in the papers the journalists doing the writing are often unconsciously projecting. This is the case across the globe no doubt.




The psychology outlined in this work is connected to the social side of life without going so far as to say that it should come under a general heading of social psychology. In this essay an holisitc psychology has been (and) is being articulated. Therefore this psychology encompasses social psychology within it as part of it. The human being cannot grow psychologically outside of a social framework.
Only a very little repetition of the psychology that has been outlined in previous chapters will be made here. Instead I am going to say the things that are directly’ concerned with the Social World. i.e. the key themes. Nevertheless, I should at least say the following the psychological themes outlined so far in this psychological work unconscious projection, conscious projection, participation mystique, complexes, differentiation, ego strenthening are all relevant here, and a little thought should make that obvious. The fact that those terms have been discussed in previous chapters of this work enables me to keep Part 5 brief.

But the key terms are all linked. The key terms discussed here are:



To be anti-social is to be neurotic’. Domineering Power’ is NOT social. Domineering Power’ is anti-social. It is not an uncommon mistake for some people to make. Also, as well as irritating others (who can however learn from it thus turning it into a positive for them) it is also unhealthy for the individual who lives to dominate and have power over others. It is psychologically unhealthy for him because he’s tied to the object (i.e. he’s tied to the other person or persons. HE’S NOT FREE).

Therefore how should one define a socially healthy person?


In terms of social relationships the definition of liberal/educated is to be naturally social’ without being tied to the outer person. There’s no domineering power. It is therefore educated because it is HEALTHY.

OBJECTIVITY (read this with my essay titled The limits of Consciousness’)

Objectivity in life is so important in order to get over subjective personal bias and prejudice. This requires being a little educated. Note that by striving for something bigger than yourself you avoid ego inflation’. Those who suffer from ego inflation suffer because they are tied to the object. THEY ARE NOT FREE.
Being objective is a key way of avoiding many of the neurotic hang-ups discussed in this work. But note this objectivity is similar to (and indeed, would include) the example of a Rangers fan on his views on Celtic Objective thinking isn’t just an objective statement. It requires a context. E.g. A Glasgow Rangers fan who claims objective thinking when he says Celtic had a bad day didn’t they Afterall they lost 3-0! Isn’t to be thought of as objective even if Celtic did lose 3-0. This is because the CONTEXT has to be taken into account. The context is that he hates’ Celtic. Therefore he CANNOT be objective about Celtic until he vanquishes the hate’.

Also note, that there is no attack on subjectivity here. One takes an objective stance on something and then their take’ on it is subject to their subjective colouration which they cannot avoid. (SEE MY ESSAY TITLED THE LIMITS OF CONSCIOUSNESS’)

A word on Adler

Adlerian social adaption is encompassed within my psychology. Inferiority complexes must be overcome not by going to the other extreme of ego domineering power. Inferiority complexes are overcome by social assuredness and by the social psychology that I have outlined in this part of my work. Adler’s social adaptation also includes working and setting up a home life, and (as said) all of this is encompassed within my psychology.

Democratic Family

The democratic family’ is very important for health. Democratic’ captures the spirit of what I mean here but I suppose it’s even more clear if I simply say that individual members of the group who power-trip are behaving socially and psychologically disgracefully. Again, it is themself who suffers most, no matter how irritated others are by it.

Similarities with Like-Minds

It’s in similarities with like-minds that the individual discovers her social side i.e. her healthy connection with other people. But note that there’s always a subjective side to the individual. And if there wasn’t it would be due to a neurotic participation mystique.


In his book Jung and the Making of a Modern Psychology: The Dream of a Science (2003), there is a chapter titled Psychology and the Science Question’. At the very end of that chapter the author and historian of Jung, Sonu Shamdasani quotes Jung on this very question

Psyche is the mother of all our attempts to understand Nature, but in contradistinction to all others it tries to understand itself by itself, a great disadvantage in one way and an equally great prerogative in the other’.

(Jung, p99)

Shamdasani then takes up the baton and writes

Thus the problems that beset psychology were ultimately of concern for all other scientific disciplines, for they too stemmed from the same psyche’.

(Shamdasani, p99)

Shamdasani makes it clear in the same chapter that this is still the case in the present day. But his point is a good one. Moreover, nothing can be more important than psychological health. Only physical health equals it. And they tend to come as one package’.
I believe with certainty that the psychology that I have outlined in this essay works’ when read alongside my essay titled WorldView’. Whether one calls it a science or not is an academic question. It’s as good as a natural science. It works and that is what counts. Indeed it brings about a more complete picture. It completes science*. But the individual has to make their psyche work for health. It is imperative that they do. (i.e. in psychology there is an onus on the individual). Otherwise the psyche will work in a negative way against their health! Again psychology shares this with physical health.


I do not mean to give the impression that by giving psychology a place at the table the human species attains a perfect scientific picture of the nature of reality. Nevertheless, a higher perspective is attained than the one adopted by classical physicist adherents. (see my essay titled WorldView’) which continues on from where this work leaves off.

Clarke, J, (1992) In Search of Jung: Historical and Philosophical Enquiries (Routledge)

Eisendrath, P. Y & Dawson, T. D, (Editors), (1997) The Cambridge Companion to Jung (Cambridge University Press)

Hoeller, S, (2002) The Gnostic Jung and the Seven Sermons to the Dead (Quest Books)

Jung, C, (1973) The Collected Works: Volume 2: Experimental Researches (Routledge)

Jung, C, (1969) The Collected Works: Volume 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche (Routledge)

Jung, C, (1958) The Collected Works: Volume 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East (Routledge)

Jung, C, (1954) The Collected Works: Volume 18: The Symbolic Life (Routledge)

Segal, R, (1997) Jung on Mythology (Routledge)

Shamdasani, S, (2003) Jung and the Making of a Modern Psychology: The Dream of a Science (Cambridge University Press)