Question: Any suggestions on determining if dream symbols are Archetypical or personal? (I have some knowledge of Jungian thought.)For example:
A dream about a monkey or a bear may come from the collective in that the symbol is universal and archetypical. On the other hand it may relate personally to a bear or a monkey I saw on TV or at the zoo.
An excellent and complex question which goes to the heart of Jung's contribution to our culture. I will briefly touch upon my opinions here, and then offer some resource for further investigation.
Generally speaking, all images are both personal *and* archetypal, at the same time. If we talk about how the bear image unfolds one's personal history and meaning, we are focusing on the personal. If we talk about how the bear transforms our consciousness and that of culture or humankind, we are at the archetypal level. But just because archetypal patterns can be found doesn't mean the image is archetypal for just a dreamer.
The key question to differentiating personal from archetypal sweet dream imagery is the *experience*: Is the experience of the image numinous, i.e. full of awe, wonder, and sense of the Wholly Other? In studying archetypes we often do so by reading about them, and thus get the intellectual or abstract aspects of how they universally unfold, how they structurally pattern behavior and how they are related to one another in the process of Individuation.
In popular culture we say so often, "Oh, it was so archetypal!" meaning that it was humorously filled with all the expected trappings. It is true that we can be "possessed" by an archetype and act them out unconsciously.
But make no mistake, archetypal encounters as Jung speaks of them are overwhelming, life-transforming, often horrible and always unexpected. If we are prepared and ready to fully change our lives they can be wonderful and miraculous, but how often are we so prepared?
Cultural pattern sweet dreams, or "Big Dreams" are said to be archetypal because they effect not just the individual, but the whole culture. As we have little respect or regard for these or any other kind of dreams in our culture, we no longer hear about them and generally don't recognize them.
If we talk about the personal in terms of "personal complexes" Jung said that the archetypes express themselves *through* the complexes. In other words, it is at those spots were we have troubles and issues that we unconsciously act out an archetypal role, where we are possessed by something non-personal and only later regret our actions. In this sense, the personal and the archetypal will be mixed.
The dream bear image can be both the bear of my family dynamics as well as the Great Bear, and with both negative and positive aspects in play. To the degree we ignore the dream bear, we act it out. To the degree we explore the dream bear, we differentiate ourselves from the image and at the same time approach the positive side of the Archetypal Bear (Polar Bear? ho, ho!).
With dreams there is an added complication. There is a barrier between the waking and dreaming environment. It is so strong that some people never recall dreams. Others, especially those that Ernest Hartmann refers to as thin-boundary people, have continual nightmares.
Are we having more archetypal dreams than we know? The bear that now seems rather tame at the breakfast table nearly scared me to death in my dream. But unless that powerful part of the experience is retained (or more accurately, retains me) it would be more appropriate to say that I had a *potentially* archetypal encounter, or my dreaming self had an archetypal encounter.
The focus for Jung is not on whether one had or didn't have an archetypal encounter, but rather what one does with that encounter. Were we ready for the encounter to significantly change our life or do we need development in one of our personality functions first?
I should mention here that these questions of how to take the dream image (as personal or archetypal) are within the whole philosophy and practice of Jungian Analysis. Just how much of this is applicable outside the analytically relationship is questionable, though Jung is popular among people interested in self awareness and growth without therapists.
Within the analysis, there is said to be a general pattern of when and how to relate to dream imagery. At first, the Shadow and personal ego issues are addressed. Then the Anima/Animus archetypes are addressed, and finally the way it all comes together through the Self in the process of individuation. But age, transference, life conditions and other factors also determine the approach to dream imagery.
In summary, it is the intensity of experience of the dreamer that determines the difference between personal and archetypal imagery. It may be a more sophisticated position to see the personal and archetypal as a spectrum.
George Devereux, a psychologist who studied Native Americans & their dreams in the 1950's revealed two cultural levels in dream symbols that stand between the personal and archetypal. The first was the traditional culture, and all the meanings that culture gave to dream symbols. Horse dream, wolf dream, etc. The next was the newer culture's images, such as the replacement of horses by cars. And so the dream bear may *appear* to look like the Alaskan Brown Bear I saw on the T.V. last night, but may be operating at several levels in my dream.
At which level should the dreamer take the dream image that seems to have both personal and archetypal elements? The final decision for this rests with you, the dreamer. If you are in therapy, discuss this with your therapist. My suggestion is to ask the question of the dreaming self. Write the question down before going to bed (What is a better path for me, to take the dream bear as personal or archetypal? or I'm going to take this symbol as personal, where will that lead me?) and view the next dream you recall as the answer.
0 comments:
Post a Comment