outlawpsych.com

The purpose of this site is the exploration of the unconscious psyche. If you have an emotional resistance to the idea of an unconscious mind you should probably stop reading at this point and visit the popular, glitzy sites intended to attract your attention through their commercial appeal. You won’t find that here. Also, if your attention span is not developed enough for more than a few hundred words at a time, you may likewise prefer those other psychology sites which offer videos, blurbs, and other marketing ploys designed for attention deficit. Though this site may include a wide range of topics and discussions, its design is to encourage a meaningful exchange of  ideas for the individual drawn toward self-development.

I must confess my lack of accepted credentials. Much effort and training is required of the therapeutic profession, and I don’t wish to disparage it (beyond reason). I welcome input from therapists, however; some may themselves feel caught in the treadmill of standardized evaluation, if they’re not yet too identified with what they’ve been taught.  The goal of therapy generally trends toward adjusting one to society, and for many this is desirable. Yet for many others, especially those approaching mid-life, it’s not sufficient. Because its main focus is usually a collective one, it’s often opposed to the needs of the individual. For those who feel the urge to pursue the development of personality, adjustment to the needs of society may be the greatest obstacle to that development.

Despite claims of objectivity, psychology finds itself driven mainly by collective assumption; though the individual’s subjective attitude is the primary source of conflict. Since natural science developed out of the more objective study of physical processes, psychology has had difficulty adapting to the scientific method. Psychiatry is still embedded in medical pathology with no real means of determining an objective standpoint beyond the physiological. Psychology has still to wean itself from what is conceived to be the only scientific approach available to it: statistical valuation supported by the unfounded notion that physical processes are primary.

Statistical assessment remains on a relatively superficial level, by definition unable to consider the subjective standpoint by any other measure than the average. What has been built upon its groundwork is often little more than philosophy disguised as science; an inadequate application of the physical method to the complexities of the psyche. Because of the diversity of individual experience, it may be that psychology as a science must limit itself to the collective ideal to maintain any objectivity at all; though this, too,  is dubious. Experience confirms that methods apply differently to different subjects and even then with negligible success. If psychology must remain a combination of philosophy and science to be effective, then it’s important to know where the dividing line is and how it differs with each person.

Since life can only be experienced by the individual, the conscious confrontation with conflict begins there. Psychic conflict at its deepest level finds one at odds with collective values. C. G. Jung, the Swiss psychologist, conceived this conflict to be elementary. According to his model this conflict is behind the production of psychic energy — the catalyst for the growth of personality from its earliest beginnings. The tension between a subjective consciousness and an impersonal unconscious reflects the interaction of the two opposing systems required for self-awareness and discernment. To encounter and experience this interplay in its many forms is a process which can only be adequately explored through the most personal and intimate reactions to it. To assess these intimate responses on the basis of  a collective standard is to ignore their deeper meaning and purpose for the individual.

Jung has also shown this process to be, in all essential aspects, a religious one. To begin an effective conversation with ourselves we need a concept of the unconscious which includes subjective truth and spiritual purpose beyond those impersonal, collective aspects most valued by the scientific viewpoint. These are psychic realities which Jung’s comparative historical studies have shown to be of the highest value to the development of culture throughout our evolution. If psychology doesn’t acknowledge these realities it remains largely a function of the intellect, outside our deepest emotional concerns, unable to connect with the self-healing responses of the natural psyche.

For those driven to search beyond the superficiality of statistics to seek individual growth or engage conflicts in accordance with their own unique natures, a collective ideal only contributes further to their problems. It emphasizes the impersonal standard and veils the subjective aspects of the deeper conflicts responsible for conscious development. Our unique natures are not accessible through norms, averages, and collective opinion. The individual, alone, possesses the internal images which inform his or her direction. This is a spiritual quality; it reflects the unknown which has always been conceived as divine, though historically projected onto “authorities” who knew little more about the nature of individuality than many who profess authority today.

Though Jung’s work has suggested that the problem of a more personal spiritual orientation is generally reserved for mid-life, this isn’t always so. Beside the fact that the mid-life process may have a swing of twenty years for its emergence in a given person, the process of individual orientation is inherent from infancy. The advance toward differentiation is increasing exponentially, and what was true fifty years ago may not apply today. The prevalence of psychic problems and the proliferation of methods to treat them suggest that the need for a subjective approach may be more important than previously considered.

Spiritual concerns are presently outside the limits of popular scientific endeavor; it doesn’t have the concepts to relate to them. Yet, religious emotions remain the most profound expression of our natures. Their tenets, too, are on a collective level that is being abandoned because the older model no longer resonates in the modern soul. No sensible religious framework exists which can incorporate the scientific attitude of today. Jung’s method of investigating religious images was empirical, though not the sort natural science was or is accustomed to. A different kind of thinking is required for the psyche to observe itself, as he maintained. The depth of these images necessitates an indirect, symbolic approach which is relative to the individual and not grounded on causal logic.

Jung’s work is the focus of this site, and most of what is written here will reflect my interpretation of his psychology in some form. Because the standpoint of  so much of psychology is restricted to rationalistic and materialistic interpretation (recent studies in neuroscience and dependence on medication are examples), a genuine orientation toward individuality remains secondary to collective ideals. If individual conflict is interpreted in an “objective” way, it can never penetrate below the plane of conscious symptoms and attempts to “modify” or control them. It’s often the case that the more collectively it’s interpreted, the more violence is done to the individual and the more he or she is alienated from his or her nature.