Beyond the myth of “self-domination” (Imaginal psychology in the pursuit of cultural shift)

• Authors: Aleš Vrbata
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper deals with the theoretical concepts of image and imagery as used by the foremost imaginal psychologists. Attributing primary epistemological status to image and imagery, imaginal psychology school developed a new theory of image and imagery, questioning the older thesis on the derivative and secondary epistemological status of the image. Using Jung’s concept of the autonomous psyche of an essentially archetypal nature, Hillman started to question Jung’s concept of the Self as a central archetype symbolizing a sort of disguised traditional monotheism (the Christian God, the Jewish Yahweh etc.) like Freud’s sexuality (id) or central cultural myth (the Oedipus myth). Imaginal psychology defends essential sovereignty and the equality of all images and the resultant polytheist psychology. Jungian studies set out it this direction, giving birth to parallel developments to imaginal psychology in various fields. Derrida’s and Feyerabend’s rejection of an ultimate referential frame was not identical to but corresponds to Hillman’s and Vannoy Adam’s discovery that it is fantasy that rules the psyche.

Keywords

EN

mental image(s); reality; epistemology; post-Jungians, Feyerabend; theory of science

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Human Affairs
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 24
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 136-147

Dates

published

2014-01-01

online

2013-12-27

Contributors

author

Aleš Vrbata

• Feira de Santana University

References

• [1] Corbin, H. (1972). Mundus imaginalis, or the imaginary and the imaginal. Spring publications (pp. 1–19). New York: Analytical Psychology Club of New York, Inc.
• [2] Eckman, B. (1986). Jung, Hegel, and the subjective universe, Spring publications, 88–99.
• [3] Edinger, E. F. (1972). Ego and archetype. individuation and the religious function of the psyche. New York: Putnam.
• [4] Edinger, E. F. (1994). The mystery of the coniunctio. alchemical image of individuation. Toronto: Inner City Books.
• [5] Ellenberger, H. F. (1970). The discovery of the unconscious. New York: BasicBooks.
• [6] Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against method. London-New York: Verso.
• [7] Hillman, J. (1975). Re-visioning psychology. New York: Harper & Row.
• [8] Holzbachová, I. (1996). Filozofické a metodologické problémy vědy [Philosophical and methodological problems of science]. Brno: Filosofická fakulta MU.
• [9] Jarrett, J. L. (1981). Schopenhauer and Jung. Journal of Archetype and Culture, 193–204.
• [10] Jung, C. G. (1970). Collected Works 6. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• [11] Jung, C. G. (1970a). Collected Works 8. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• [12] Jung, C. G. (1970b). Collected Works 9. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• [13] Jung, C. G. (1970c). Collected Works 10. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• [14] Jung, C.G. (1960). Good and Evil in Analytical Psychology. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 91–99.
• [15] Kugler, P. (2008). Psychic imaging: A bridge between subject and object. In P. Young-Eisendrath, T. Dawson (Eds.). The Cambridge companion to Jung (pp. 77–91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CCOL9780521865999.005[Crossref]
• [16] Roazen, P. (1975). Freud and his followers. London-New York: Knopf.
• [17] Samuels, A. (1985). Jung and the post-Jungians. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• [18] Samuels, A. (2008). New developments in the post-Jungian field. In P. Young-Eisendrath, T. Dawson (Eds.). The Cambridge companion to Jung (pp. 1–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CCOL9780521865999.001[Crossref]
• [19] Schopenhauer, A. (1958). The world as will and representation, vol. I, p. 199. London: Falcon’s Will Press.
• [20] Shamdasani, S. (2003). Jung and the making of modern psychology. The dream of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490095[Crossref]
• [21] Vannoy Adams, M. (2004). The fantasy principle: Imaginal psychology and the dethroning of “Mr. Reality”. In M. Vannoy Adams. The fantasy principle. Psychoanalysis of the imagination (pp. 1–19). New York: Brunner-Routledge.
• [22] Vannoy Adams, M. (2004a). Jungian post-structural theory. Structures versus constructs, Concepts versus images. In M. Vannoy Adams. The fantasy principle. Psychoanalysis of the imagination (pp. 40–56). New York: Brunner-Routledge.
• [23] Vannoy Adams, M. (2004b). The importance of being blasphemous. In M. Vannoy Adams. The fantasy principle. Psychoanalysis of the imagination (pp. 205–224). New York: Brunner-Routledge.
• [24] Vannoy Adams, M. (2006). Hillman alone in pursuit of the imagination: Golden calf psychology. Paper presented at the Psyche and Imagination conference of the International Association for Jungian Studies at the University of Greenwich (July 8), London. http://www.jungnewyork.com
• [25] Vannoy Adams, M. (2008). The archetypal school. In P. Young-Eisendrath & T. Dawson (Eds.). The Cambridge Companion to Jung (pp. 107–124). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CCOL9780521865999.007[Crossref]

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/s13374-014-0212-2