Statue

Statues are erected so that what they depict will be eternal; it is something "carved in stone." But symbolically, the immobile statue implies two events: It has been erected, and it can come to life. (Adam, the original human, is described as a statue that God breathes life into.) Erecting a statue of someone is a kind of revival of that person. In folk tales and other stories, the statue is almost always a petrified being that will likely come to life as the story progresses. The motif of the dreamer observing a statue that – possibly because of this – comes to life is not uncommon. (To gaze at something for a long time is to transfer energy to it; a kind of life-giving act.)

But when one looks at a statue, one sees something or someone that stands still in time, something timeless, and one may get an eerie sense of eternity.  

von Franz suggests that if one dreams of a statue (or another depiction), it indicates that what the statue represents is not something living for the dreamer; he or she views the content intellectually or aesthetically. (Katten i saga och verklighet, p. 38.)  

Alchemy  

Alchemists used the image of a statue in a broad sense for "body" – the original that resurfaces, that which is shaped, that which receives life, etc. The statue of stone that contains "water" or oil is sometimes an expression of the philosopher's stone. The idea that a statue hides something valuable within it – that which is worshiped, not the statue itself – is ancient; this especially applies to statues of Hermes and Mercurius. "The living statue" as an ultimate goal appears both in alchemy and Manichaeism.  

The statue symbol has a certain kinship with tree, obelisk, pillar, and world axis.  

"The statue represents Adam's sluggish matter, which still needs a life-giving soul; it is thus a symbol of one of alchemy's main interests." (Mysterium Coniunctionis, par. 569.)  

Popular posts from this blog

Forget About the Archetype - It's the Complex

A good post on Reddit expresses criticism towards people seeking answers to their personal problems in Jung’s archetype theory, arguing that they misunderstand Jung’s fundamental theoretical framework, particularly the process of individuation. The post became popular, receiving many upvotes and quickly garnering several fairly lengthy, often well thought-out responses. But what struck me was that the writer didn’t mention complexes a single time in the nearly 600-word post, and no one else did either in their comments. This prompted me to write a short post highlighting the point that when people share their thoughts on Jung in relation to their own or others’ psychology, it is actually, in most cases, about complexes—not archetypes. A couple of days later, the thread had 54 comments and 246 upvotes, which are rather high numbers in this forum for a serious post that sticks to the topic of Jungian psychology. However, my post hadn't received any comments or upvotes. Still no-one e...
Read more

Shadow Work – A Critical Commentary

When browsing public channels on various platforms that deal with Jungian psychology, one is struck by how frequently “shadow work” appears.  It seems to be mostly young men, who don’t appear to have studied Jung to any significant extent, who are fascinated by and encourage this "work." As someone who has studied Jung and Jungian literature for a long time, I don’t recognize this focus on so-called shadow work in the sources at all. It actually seems to be a modern internet phenomenon rather than something genuinely Jungian. Yes, it is of course true that the “shadow” is a central concept in Jungian psychology, and it is true that Jung stated that it is "a therapeutic necessity for the ego to confront its shadow" (CW 14, par. 514) – but this shadow work they speak of, where does it come from? Because it certainly doesn’t come from Jung or any influential Jungians. What is the shadow according to Jung? It is simply hidden or unconscious aspects of ourselves that we...
Read more

3. The Muster of Rohan; 4. The Siege of Gondor

Since neither Frodo, Gandalf or Aragorn participates in the events of this chapter, there is very little symbolic significance. We may note that Théoden’s army meets Éowyn at Dunharrow, an ancient fortress to which the people have fled under her leadership. During supper, Merry asks about Aragorn and the Paths of the Dead, but no one—neither Théoden, Éomer or Éowyn—understands why he chose to take this hopeless road. No one knows of the Stone of Erech or the “peril in the south.” “Woe that so valiant a man should trifle with death in this dire hour!” Éomer exclaims. The reason for Aragorn’s reticence is probably that his initiation is an intensely private matter, a secret pure and simple. Théoden intends to leave both Éowyn and Merry behind here—neither of them is suited to battle, he believes. But when the host later rides toward Gondor, Éowyn and Merry ride with it in secret. Both refuse to be left in a place where their respective callings would remain unfulfilled. 4. The Siege of G...
Read more