Post by giovanni on Feb 8, 2006 16:32:15 GMT
TRADITION AND THE UNCONSCIOUS
Bro. René Guénon
We have explained elsewhere the role of psychoanalysis in the work of subversion which, following upon the materialist ‘solidification' of the world, constitutes the second phase of anti-traditional action characteristic of the entire modern period. (1) We return to this subject now because for some time it has been clear that the psychoanalytic offensive is gaining more and more ground, attacking tradition directly now under the pretext of explaining it, and thus distorting the very notion of tradition itself in the most dangerous way. In this respect, a distinction should be made between the unequally 'advanced' varieties of psychoanalysis: the latter, as first conceived by Freud, was to a certain point limited by the materialist attitude which it intended to retain; not that it wag any the less ‘satanic’, naturally, but at least it put a stop to any pretension of going beyond certain domains, or, even if it did claim to do so, it actually only achieved some rather crude counterfeits causing confusions relatively easy to dissipate. Thus, when Freud spoke of ‘symbolism’, what he thus misnamed was in reality only a simple product of the human imagination, variable from one individual to another and having nothing in common with authentic traditional symbolism. But that was only a first stage, and it remained for other psychoanalysts to modify the theories of their 'master' in the direction of a false spirituality, in order that by a more subtle confusion they might apply them to the interpretation of traditional symbolism itself. This was especially the case with Carl Gustav Jung, whose first attempts in this field already have a long history. It must be noted, for it is quite significant, that for this interpretation Jung starts from a comparison he believed he could establish between certain symbols and drawings made by the mentally ill; and we must in fact acknowledge that these drawings sometimes do offer a sort of ‘parodic' resemblance to genuine symbols, which cannot fail to leave us somewhat uneasy as to the nature of their source of inspiration.
What greatly aggravates matters is that in order to explain what purely individual factors cannot account for, Jung is led to formulate the hypothesis of a so-called 'collective unconscious; existing in some way in or below the psychism of all human individuals, to which he believed he could attribute the origin both of symbols themselves and of their pathological parodies indiscriminately. It goes without saying that this term ‘unconscious' is, altogether inappropriate, and that what it serves to designate, to the degree that it can be said to have any reality, comes from what psychologists call more commonly the ‘subconscious', that is, the totality of the inferior prolongations of consciousness. We have already noted elsewhere the frequent confusion between the ‘subconscious' and the ‘superconscious', since by its very nature the ‘superconscious' completely escapes the domain investigated by the psychologists, when these latter happen upon some of its manifestations, they never fail to attribute them to the ‘subconscious: It is precisely this confusion that we meet again here: there cannot be the slightest doubt that the productions of the sick, observed by psychiatrists, stem from the subconscious; but everything that is of the traditional order, especially symbolism, can only be linked to the ‘superconscious', that is, to that by which communication is established with the supra-human, while the ‘subconscious' tends on the contrary toward the infra-human. Here in fact we have a veritable inversion, which is quite characteristic of this type of explanation; and what gives it an appearance of justification is that in all such cases as the one mentioned, it happens that the 'subconscious', thanks to its contacts with psychic influences of the lowest order, effectively ‘apes' the 'superconscious'. This is the source of the illusion that results in what we have called an ‘inverse spirituality' for those who let themselves be deceived by these counterfeits and who are incapable of discerning their true nature.
It is thought that the theory of the 'collective unconscious' is able to explain the fact that the symbol is ‘prior to individual thought' and goes beyond it; the real question, which never even seems to be asked, would be to know in which direction it goes beyond it, whether downward, as this appeal to the so-called ‘unconscious' would seem to indicate, or upward, as, on the contrary, all traditional doctrines expressly affirm. Irk a recent article we found a statement in which this confusion appears as dearly as can be: ‘The interpretation of symbols ... is the door opened to the Great All, that is, the way that leads through the labyrinth of the dark recesses of our individuality to the total light: Unfortunately, there is a good chance that in going astray in these ‘dark recesses' one will reach something completely different from ‘total light: Let us also take note of the dangerous ambiguity of the ‘Great All’, which, like the ‘cosmic consciousness' into which some aspire to be dissolved, can here only be the diffuse psychism of the lowest regions of the subtle world; and so it is that in reality the psychoanalytic and the traditional interpretations of symbols lead to diametrically opposed ends.
Here we should add yet another important remark: ‘folklore' must naturally be included among the very diverse things that the ‘collective unconscious' is supposed to explain, and this is one instance where the theory might bear some semblance of truth. To be more exact, we should speak here of a sort of ‘collective memory', which is like an image or reflection in the human domain of that ‘cosmic memory' which corresponds to one aspect of the symbolism of the moon. But to wish to infer the very origin of tradition from the nature of ‘folklore' is to commit an error altogether similar to the one so widespread today that would have us consider 'primitive' what is only the product of a degeneration. It is obvious in fact that 'folklore' being essentially composed of elements drawn from dead traditions, inevitably represents a state of degeneration; but it is nonetheless the only means by which something of them could be saved. It must also be asked under what conditions the conservation of these elements was entrusted to the ‘collective memory', As we have already had occasion to mention, we can only see in this a perfectly conscious action on the part of the last representatives of the ancient traditional forms which were on the point of disappearing. What is most certain is that the collective mentality, inasmuch as there exists something that can be called such, is strictly reduced to a memory, which is expressed in astrological symbolism by saying that it is of a lunar nature; put another way, it can perform a certain function of conservation, which is precisely that of ‘folklore'; but it is totally incapable of producing or elaborating anything whatsoever, least of all something of a transcendent order as is all traditional teaching by very definition.
The psychoanalytical interpretation of traditional symbols aims at denying this transcendence, but in a new way so to speak, different from those that have been used previously. It is no longer a question either of a brutal negation or of pure and simple ignorance of the existence of every 'non-bum an' element, as is the case with rationalism in all its forms; on the contrary, it seems to admit that tradition actually has a 'non-human' character, but only by twisting totally the meaning of that term; thus, at the end of the article cited above, we read:
We will perhaps return to these psychoanalytical interpretations of our spiritual treasure, of which the ‘constancy' across time and civilizations well demonstrates the traditional character, non-human, if one takes the word ‘human' in a separative or ‘individual' sense.
It is perhaps this avowal that best shows what is ultimately the real intention underlying all this, an intention moreover which we would like to believe is not always conscious in those who write such things, for it must be understood that what is involved is not this or that individuality, were it even that of a 'head of a school' like Jung, but rather a most suspicious ‘inspiration; from which these interpretations proceed. We need go no further in the study of traditional doctrines to know that when it is a question of a ‘non-human' element, what is understood thereby, and what pertains essentially to supra-individual states of the being, has absolutely nothing to do with a 'collective' factor, which in itself really only arises from the individual human domain; this is equally true of what is here qualified as ‘separative', and which, by its ‘subconscious' character, cannot in any case open communication with other states except in the direction of the infra-human. Here one can immediately grasp the process of subversion which consists in taking certain traditional notions and somehow twisting them, substituting the 'subcon-scious' for the ‘superconscious', the ‘infra-human' for ‘the supra-human'. Is not this subversion even more dangerous still than a mere negation, and will it be thought that we exaggerate when we say that it contributes to preparing the way for a veritable 'counter-tradition' destined to serve as vehicle for this ‘inverse spirituality' of which, toward the end of the present cycle, the ‘reign of the Antichrist' will mark the apparent and passing triumph?
(1)See The Reign of Quantities and the Signs of the Times, chap. 34
(2)See on this subject André Préau, Le Fleur d’Or et le Taoisme sans Tao
Bro. René Guénon
We have explained elsewhere the role of psychoanalysis in the work of subversion which, following upon the materialist ‘solidification' of the world, constitutes the second phase of anti-traditional action characteristic of the entire modern period. (1) We return to this subject now because for some time it has been clear that the psychoanalytic offensive is gaining more and more ground, attacking tradition directly now under the pretext of explaining it, and thus distorting the very notion of tradition itself in the most dangerous way. In this respect, a distinction should be made between the unequally 'advanced' varieties of psychoanalysis: the latter, as first conceived by Freud, was to a certain point limited by the materialist attitude which it intended to retain; not that it wag any the less ‘satanic’, naturally, but at least it put a stop to any pretension of going beyond certain domains, or, even if it did claim to do so, it actually only achieved some rather crude counterfeits causing confusions relatively easy to dissipate. Thus, when Freud spoke of ‘symbolism’, what he thus misnamed was in reality only a simple product of the human imagination, variable from one individual to another and having nothing in common with authentic traditional symbolism. But that was only a first stage, and it remained for other psychoanalysts to modify the theories of their 'master' in the direction of a false spirituality, in order that by a more subtle confusion they might apply them to the interpretation of traditional symbolism itself. This was especially the case with Carl Gustav Jung, whose first attempts in this field already have a long history. It must be noted, for it is quite significant, that for this interpretation Jung starts from a comparison he believed he could establish between certain symbols and drawings made by the mentally ill; and we must in fact acknowledge that these drawings sometimes do offer a sort of ‘parodic' resemblance to genuine symbols, which cannot fail to leave us somewhat uneasy as to the nature of their source of inspiration.
What greatly aggravates matters is that in order to explain what purely individual factors cannot account for, Jung is led to formulate the hypothesis of a so-called 'collective unconscious; existing in some way in or below the psychism of all human individuals, to which he believed he could attribute the origin both of symbols themselves and of their pathological parodies indiscriminately. It goes without saying that this term ‘unconscious' is, altogether inappropriate, and that what it serves to designate, to the degree that it can be said to have any reality, comes from what psychologists call more commonly the ‘subconscious', that is, the totality of the inferior prolongations of consciousness. We have already noted elsewhere the frequent confusion between the ‘subconscious' and the ‘superconscious', since by its very nature the ‘superconscious' completely escapes the domain investigated by the psychologists, when these latter happen upon some of its manifestations, they never fail to attribute them to the ‘subconscious: It is precisely this confusion that we meet again here: there cannot be the slightest doubt that the productions of the sick, observed by psychiatrists, stem from the subconscious; but everything that is of the traditional order, especially symbolism, can only be linked to the ‘superconscious', that is, to that by which communication is established with the supra-human, while the ‘subconscious' tends on the contrary toward the infra-human. Here in fact we have a veritable inversion, which is quite characteristic of this type of explanation; and what gives it an appearance of justification is that in all such cases as the one mentioned, it happens that the 'subconscious', thanks to its contacts with psychic influences of the lowest order, effectively ‘apes' the 'superconscious'. This is the source of the illusion that results in what we have called an ‘inverse spirituality' for those who let themselves be deceived by these counterfeits and who are incapable of discerning their true nature.
It is thought that the theory of the 'collective unconscious' is able to explain the fact that the symbol is ‘prior to individual thought' and goes beyond it; the real question, which never even seems to be asked, would be to know in which direction it goes beyond it, whether downward, as this appeal to the so-called ‘unconscious' would seem to indicate, or upward, as, on the contrary, all traditional doctrines expressly affirm. Irk a recent article we found a statement in which this confusion appears as dearly as can be: ‘The interpretation of symbols ... is the door opened to the Great All, that is, the way that leads through the labyrinth of the dark recesses of our individuality to the total light: Unfortunately, there is a good chance that in going astray in these ‘dark recesses' one will reach something completely different from ‘total light: Let us also take note of the dangerous ambiguity of the ‘Great All’, which, like the ‘cosmic consciousness' into which some aspire to be dissolved, can here only be the diffuse psychism of the lowest regions of the subtle world; and so it is that in reality the psychoanalytic and the traditional interpretations of symbols lead to diametrically opposed ends.
Here we should add yet another important remark: ‘folklore' must naturally be included among the very diverse things that the ‘collective unconscious' is supposed to explain, and this is one instance where the theory might bear some semblance of truth. To be more exact, we should speak here of a sort of ‘collective memory', which is like an image or reflection in the human domain of that ‘cosmic memory' which corresponds to one aspect of the symbolism of the moon. But to wish to infer the very origin of tradition from the nature of ‘folklore' is to commit an error altogether similar to the one so widespread today that would have us consider 'primitive' what is only the product of a degeneration. It is obvious in fact that 'folklore' being essentially composed of elements drawn from dead traditions, inevitably represents a state of degeneration; but it is nonetheless the only means by which something of them could be saved. It must also be asked under what conditions the conservation of these elements was entrusted to the ‘collective memory', As we have already had occasion to mention, we can only see in this a perfectly conscious action on the part of the last representatives of the ancient traditional forms which were on the point of disappearing. What is most certain is that the collective mentality, inasmuch as there exists something that can be called such, is strictly reduced to a memory, which is expressed in astrological symbolism by saying that it is of a lunar nature; put another way, it can perform a certain function of conservation, which is precisely that of ‘folklore'; but it is totally incapable of producing or elaborating anything whatsoever, least of all something of a transcendent order as is all traditional teaching by very definition.
The psychoanalytical interpretation of traditional symbols aims at denying this transcendence, but in a new way so to speak, different from those that have been used previously. It is no longer a question either of a brutal negation or of pure and simple ignorance of the existence of every 'non-bum an' element, as is the case with rationalism in all its forms; on the contrary, it seems to admit that tradition actually has a 'non-human' character, but only by twisting totally the meaning of that term; thus, at the end of the article cited above, we read:
We will perhaps return to these psychoanalytical interpretations of our spiritual treasure, of which the ‘constancy' across time and civilizations well demonstrates the traditional character, non-human, if one takes the word ‘human' in a separative or ‘individual' sense.
It is perhaps this avowal that best shows what is ultimately the real intention underlying all this, an intention moreover which we would like to believe is not always conscious in those who write such things, for it must be understood that what is involved is not this or that individuality, were it even that of a 'head of a school' like Jung, but rather a most suspicious ‘inspiration; from which these interpretations proceed. We need go no further in the study of traditional doctrines to know that when it is a question of a ‘non-human' element, what is understood thereby, and what pertains essentially to supra-individual states of the being, has absolutely nothing to do with a 'collective' factor, which in itself really only arises from the individual human domain; this is equally true of what is here qualified as ‘separative', and which, by its ‘subconscious' character, cannot in any case open communication with other states except in the direction of the infra-human. Here one can immediately grasp the process of subversion which consists in taking certain traditional notions and somehow twisting them, substituting the 'subcon-scious' for the ‘superconscious', the ‘infra-human' for ‘the supra-human'. Is not this subversion even more dangerous still than a mere negation, and will it be thought that we exaggerate when we say that it contributes to preparing the way for a veritable 'counter-tradition' destined to serve as vehicle for this ‘inverse spirituality' of which, toward the end of the present cycle, the ‘reign of the Antichrist' will mark the apparent and passing triumph?
(1)See The Reign of Quantities and the Signs of the Times, chap. 34
(2)See on this subject André Préau, Le Fleur d’Or et le Taoisme sans Tao