The self as defined by Jung is the core or central component that keeps these opposing forces operating as an integrated whole. To what closing stages does this process manage? It was formed by evolution and so survival is the architect but it is survival not just of the next generation but into an unclear future. The self as described by Jung is the psychic image of this limitless potential for prospect development. For itself it focuses on the various dimensions of human functioning that put in to survival including ingenuity in all its forms.
Sensing the self as something irrational, as an impalpable existent, to which the ego is neither opposed nor subject, but simply attached, and about which it spins very much as the earth does round the sun, accordingly the goal of individuation is reached. The word "sensing" is used to indicate the apperceptive nature of the relationship between ego and self. In this connection nothing is knowable, since nothing can be said about the contents of the self. The ego is the only content of the self that is known by people. The individuated ego senses itself as the object of an unidentified and supraordinate subject. It seems that our psychological inquiry must come to a stop here, for the thought of a self is itself a transcendental postulate which, although justified psychologically, does not give chance for scientific proof. This step further than science is an unconditional prerequisite of the psychological development because without this postulate no adequate formulation of the psychic processes that occur empirically can be given. At the very least, consequently, the self can claim the value of a hypothesis comparable to that of the structure of the atom.
The self is transcendent since it points to a limitless future and unrestrained creative expansion of the evolutionary process; this is something that cannot be comprehend by any being. Evidently we can have some sense of the future structure of the evolutionary process, but that tells us nothing of its real meaning, it tells us nothing of what it is like to be a more exceedingly evolved being. Is it reasonable that such a psychic structure would evolve and if so how can we agree to Jung's claim that this structure does not "give chance for scientific proof"? The key to this puzzle may lie in the earlier mentioned intuition of Jung that number is the archetypal intermediary between the physical and the transcendent. The function that number plays in mythology and in the unconscious gives food for thought. They are a facet of the physically real as well of the psychically imaginary. They do not merely count and measure, and are not only quantitative; they as well make qualitative statements and are thus a mysterious something midway between myth and reality, partly discovered and partly invented. Equations, for example, that were invented as pure mathematical formulae have consequently proved to be formulations of the quantitative behavior of physical things. On the other hand owing to their individual qualities, numbers can be vehicles for psychic processes in the unconscious. The structure of the mandala, for example, is intrinsically mathematical.
These hints are simply intended to point out to the reader that the conflict between the human world and the higher world is not supreme; the two are only relatively incommensurable, for the bridge between them is not completely lacking. Between them stands the great mediator, number, whose veracity is valid in both worlds, as an archetype in its very essence (Jung, 1970). Mathematics allows individuals to gain some understanding of the progression of structure over time by connecting with the transcendent. People can know about structural aspects of what will be although structures of the psyche that have developed to facilitate human creativity do not have a precise or scientifically understandable goal because if they did they would not be creative. One thing to keep in mind in interpreting Jung's intuitions about Number is that he did not understand mathematics at all. Maybe Jung's intuitive sense that structure never captures or even touches on real meaning underlies his trouble with mathematics. Mathematical identity is structural identity but mathematical identity is not existential identity. In the physical world every object has a location and notwithstanding the fact that two objects at different locations have identical internal structure their affiliation to time and space keep them from being identical, they are two essences and not one.
Perhaps Jung's scholarly morality would not allow the simulated separation...
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now