Under construction...Nov. 3rd, 2010.
1. Convergence and Divergence
Freud and Jung both went through periods of 'dark self-analysis'.
With Freud, it was mainly after his father died.
With Jung, it was when he was in theoretical conflict with Freud and was caught between 'hanging on to the Freudian approach' vs. 'developing his own unique approach.
I talked briefly about 'divergence and convergence', 'contact and withdrawal', 'separation and union' in my last essay.
This is the dialectical -- or 'multi-dialectic' -- cycle of life.
A distinction can be made between two types of 'energy': a)'integrative energy' vs. b) 'individuated energy'.
a) Integrative energy can be both good and bad. It is the energy of two or more uniquely differentiated parts, particles, bacteria, viruses, plants, animals, people, countries coming together to create something that is 'greater and stronger than the sum of the two individuated parts separate on their own...eg. Lennon and McCartney, Wayne and Shuster, Abbott and Costello, any successful business partnership or love relationship...
However, integrative energy can quickly or slowly 'DIE'...through the process of individual neglect and/or alienation if what was exciting and dynamic in the beginning of the 'dialectical relationship' starts to become mundane and routine over time...Dialectic engagement, contact, and excitement fades away -- or at least can, and often does, fade away -- and the dialectic partnership becomes a 'shell' of its original self, its original 'dynamic duo'...
Conflict, anger, resentment, and alienated impasses enter the picture -- and often a 'compensatory longing' for a new and different type of partnership...can stir new forms of longing, desire, and excitement...
The conflict can sometimes be seen as being between 'stability', 'loyalty', and 'rootedness' on the one hand; and 'mystery', 'newness', 'intrigue', and a heightened sense of 'desire', 'attraction', 'romance' and/or 'sexuality' on the other hand...at least if we are talking about an 'alienated or partly alienated marriage' (which doesn't even necessarily have to play a part in the new dialectic partnership)...The human personality is always looking for new and different ways of 'extending and actualizing the multitude of different parts of its own self and life mandala'...both inside and/or outside of a stable and/or unstable long-term partnership...
To state the obvious, there are many different types of people in the world with a myriad of different character-traits that can be 'attractive' to us, at least at first, until perhaps the same characteristic starts to become 'too much' for us later on, and thus begins to take on a 'negative judgment and feeling' as opposed to its earlier 'positive judgment and feeling'... Every pronounced characteristic we meet in a person is thus often flanked by both positive and negative elements attached to this characteristic...
The 'bold, assertive' person we meet and are attracted to at first can become 'too pushy and controlling' later on in our relationship...As Hegel stated, and I am paraphrasing, every theory, every characteristic, every person, carries the seeds to his or her or its own self-destruction...as well as self-celebration....depending on how it is used and where it goes and how it is judged...
Some people are more liberal-minded, creative, daring, risk-taking, adventurous, excitement-seeking...
While others are more conservative-minded, less creative, less daring, less risk-taking, less adventurous, less excitement-seeking, more concerned about such life factors as safety, stability, rootedness, routine, predictability, and the like...
Neither is better or worse than the other...both have both their positive and negative features to them...
Probably most of us seek a balance of both....Again the magic principle of 'dialectic, (democratic, egalitarian), homeostatic balance or equilibrium' enters the picture...
Another way of quickly differentiating people is on their 'degree of self-boundaries'...and 'degree of openess and/or closedness to others'....
A partly or mainly Freudian distinction can be made between a) 'the socially (or 'orally')-receptive' person who tends to be more outgoing, more socially receptive, more 'socially extraverted' as opposed to b) the person who tends to be more 'socially (or anally)-rejecting' 'socially (or anally)-schizoid'...closed in, less receptive to social interaction, 'intraverted', protective of his or her self-boundaries, and how close you get to him or her, a plate of 'body or character armour' metaphorically 'protecting his or her heart', protecting his or her sense of emotional vulnerability, or alternatively, more interested in the 'thoughts and ideas and issues going on inside his or her head' than in 'attempting to carry on any kind of meaningful conversation with anyone'...
Again, neither type is necessarily better or worse than the other in itself -- the ''orally/socially receptive' or 'anally/socially rejecting' person -- but both have their respective strengths and weaknesses attached to their 'dominant style of interaction' and their 'serial (obsessive-compulsive) behavior pattern' with 'flexibility according to the context of the situation' being an important factor in achieving a better balance between the two different modes of interacting with the world...
We move on...
-- dgb, Nov. 6th, 2010,
-- David Gordon Bain
