Union of Opposites - Good or Bad?

 

This striking image was posted on Reddit with the title "The Integration", with no further comments from the creator. One can understand this as the image expressing the union of opposites (coniunctio oppositorum), which in turn is the "goal."

The recurring opposites in Jungian psychology roughly refer to the conscious attitude and its unconscious compensatory content. Between these lies a conflict, which – if it remains unconscious – gives rise to "neurotic symptoms." Becoming conscious of the conflict means the potential union of opposites, or expressed differently, the integration of the unconscious content into the conscious psyche. This broadens consciousness, making it more whole. Often the union of opposites concerns the integration of the shadow or anima/animus. At first glance, the image above can be understood as this integration, this union of opposites. But is that so?

No, I don't think so. What we see in the image is a monster. The figure is one thing, but at the same time it is the other. One is reminded of creatures in Greek mythology, such as the Minotaur (human body and bull head), the Chimera (lion body, goat head, and serpent tail), and the Manticore (human face, lion body, and scorpion tail); but also curses such as King Midas' donkey ears and Medusa's snakes instead of hair. These images do not express a desirable integration but rather describe the creature being stuck in an unfortunate state of being both one thing and the other. The union of opposites, in this sense, is not a goal; it is often expressed as a monster in dreams and, for example, alchemical imagery.

A common expression of being stuck in both one thing and the other is hermaphroditism. (Cf. Redemption Motifs in Fairytales, p. 27f.) The hermaphrodite is a symbol of a subgoal or an early stage, according to Jung; opposites that have united on a "lower" level need to be separated to be united on a "higher" level later on. (Cf. Psychology and Alchemy, par. 404.) Regarding Image 9 in the Rosarium philosophorum series, which shows a reclining hermaphrodite, Jung writes:

“The presence of this divided pair of opposites means that although the hermaphrodite appears to be united and is on the point of coming alive, the conflict between them is by no means finally resolved and has not yet disappeared …” ("The Psychology of the Transference," par. 494.)

A third symbol for this premature union is incest, a common image within alchemy – the king lying with his mother in the grave, the son and sister drowning united, and so on. (Cf. Mysterium Lectures, p. 187.) “Incest is a preliminary form of the unio oppositorum,” Jung states in Mysterium Coniunctionis (par. 188).

In the incest examples, we see that death follows from a lesser union, something Edinger emphasizes in The Mystery of the Coniunctio (p. 69-70). He argues that mortificatio follows from a lower coniunctio and uses the stories of Romeo and Juliet and Tristan and Isolde as examples—lovers who lose themselves in each other, leading to both of their deaths.

As we can see, the union of opposites, as one often gets the impression of, is not by definition a kind of final goal, or necessarily a desirable integration of the other.

Jung has become popular again among younger people, judging from various forums, and the most recurring concept discussed is "shadow work" with the supposed, subsequent "integration of the shadow". (I think this is a consequence of our culture’s hero ideal, but that is another discussion.) I believe it is a bit unfortunate because it would be better to imagine the "shadow" as something ongoing – a kind of "shadowing" that it is good to relate to as consciously as possible; rather than being envisioned as a "thing" that can be "integrated". I mention this now because I have seen that those who have, in their own view, "integrated the shadow" are often feeling miserable. One might have expected some kind of enlightenment but finds themselves in a dreadful conflict. They have become both one thing and the other at the same time. In my eyes, it is this state that the image illustrates, rather than an alchemist's final goal of uniting opposites in the philosopher's stone.

So, how would such a ”higher” union look? Well, I inadvertently revealed the answer to this in the previous sentence. The alchemist unites the opposites in the third – in the stone. This union is not "this and that", but something new that connects them. In the image, the conflict is explicit, but we also see a lotus at the chest. I believe this expresses the potential, higher union. The lotus is neither this nor that, but the unknown third that symbolizes wholeness.

“Since opposites cannot be united at their own level, a superior third is always needed, in which the two can come together ... through a symbol ...” (Aion, par. 280, 281.)

So, while we can integrate, say, aspects of our shadow through, for example, consciously withdrawing projections, a conflict arises within us. Jung compares this state to Christ's cross. Yes, indeed, it is a form of wholeness, but the opposites are in conflict with each other. (Visions Seminar, 933ff.) So, how do we move forward from here?

According to Jung, it is about enduring the conflict. First, as the image above illustrates, becoming aware of the conflict and then harboring it painfully.

“… out of this collision of opposites the unconscious psyche always creates a third thing of an irrational nature, which the conscious mind neither expects or understands. It presents itself in a form that is neither a straight ’yes’ nor straight ’no,’ and is consequently rejected by both. For the conscious mind knows nothing beyond the opposites and, as a result, has no knowledge of the thing that unites them.” (”The Psychology of the Child Archetype”, par. 285.)

The third thing required for the real union of opposites is, therefore, a "reconciling symbol" (Visions) which is often expressed abstractly – such as a lotus, a stone, a sparkling fountain, or indeed, a child. The reconciling symbol that arises is something new and independent in relation to the opposites – "an unknown third", "an objective fact" we didn’t foresee.




The source of the first photo is unknown. When searching I have only found it reposted on social media platforms. The second photo is from StockCake.

Comments

Post a Comment

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