Instinct and Archetype

Instincts have been studied in humans and animals for a long time by natural scientists as well as philosophers and psychologists. Wikipedia defines instinct as "the inherent inclination of a living organism towards a particular complex behavior." Instincts form the foundation of "being"; instinctive drives are multi-level in nature. There are "animal" instincts like self-preservation, sexual instinct, aggression, coming up to social instincts like care and play seen in higher mammals and higher human instincts like the creative instinct, developmental instinct, self-perfection instinct, "religious" instinct etc. There are multiple levels inside each instinct as well as described in detail by the Polish psychologist Dr Dabrowski. Instincts can aid or hinder human development. The purpose of this study is to look at instinct from biological, psychological (including Jungian psychology) and information centric perspectives with the practical goal of incorporating the knowledge for growth and evolution. To do this, some groundwork needs to be laid down.

Instinctive Behavior in Animals and Morphic Fields

Instinctive behavior has long been studied extensively in animals. The key points emerging from the study of ethologists (animal behavior scientists) regarding instinctive behavior can be described as

- stereotyped fixed action patterns not attributable to experiential learning

- organized in a hierarchic fashion where one level is activated by the level above it

- triggered or released by a specific stimulus coming from internal or external source

- inherited genetically

The last point is related to the origin of instincts and it is a controversial topic. Instincts can be studied through behavior - and to what extent behavior is conditioned by genetics is a topic of debate.Let us take a look at it from the information centric perspective primarily following the work of Dr Rupert Sheldrake.

In Sheldrake's view, nature has a collective memory and her workings can be viewed from the perspective of evolving habits rather than fixed mechanistic laws. Sheldrake's initial work on genetics and developmental biology led him to propose the hypothesis of morphic resonance. Later on, the scope of his basic hypothesis was extended to include animal and human behavior. The organism in this model can be regarded as a receiver of information tuned to specific channels pertaining to its own kind and resonating to those aspects of the natural information field. This natural information field creates structures and directs complex behavior in humans and animals and in turn gets influenced by them.

Regarding the question of genetic inheritance of instincts, we can use Sheldrake's analogy of building a house. The right molecules or proteins being generated (function of genes) are analogous to the appropriate building materials being conveyed to the site of construction. The actual structure being built is based on a plan which in Sheldrake's conception is supplied by the field. For generating physical forms (developing legs, head etc in developmental context for example), this field is morphogenetic in nature. Similarly Sheldrake hypothesizes the existence of behavioral fields which condition complex behavior. He has interesting experiments sited where there is evidence of instinctive behavior which cannot come from the prevailing mechanistic model of genetic inheritance.

The term "fixed" in "fixed action patterns" used to describe instinctive behavior actually refers to a directed goal which can be arrived at through different routes. Sheldrake gives an example in his book "Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Memory of Nature" which involves the funnel building activity of mud wasps belonging to the Paralastor species. It nicely illustrates the key points of instinctive behavior.

Female mud wasps of a Paralastor species in Australia build and provision underground nests in an elaborate way. First, they excavate a narrow hole about 3 inches long and ¼ inch wide in a bank of hard, sandy soil. Then they line this with mud. The mud is made by the wasp from soil near the nest; she releases water from her crop onto the soil, which she then rolls into a ball with her mandibles, carries into the hole, and uses to line the walls. When the hole has been fully lined, the wasp begins to construct a large and elaborate funnel over the entrance, building it up from a series of mud pellets. The function of this funnel appears to be the exclusion of parasitic wasps, which cannot get a grip on the smooth inside of the funnel; they simply fall out when they try to enter. After the funnel is completed, the wasp lays an egg at the end of the nest hole and begins provisioning the nest with caterpillars, which are sealed into cells, each about ¾ inch long. The last cell, nearest the entrance, is often sealed off empty, possibly as a protection against parasites. The nest hole is then sealed with a plug of mud, and the wasp destroys the carefully constructed funnel, leaving nothing but a few scattered fragments lying on the ground.

This is a sequence of fixed action patterns, governed by behavioral chreodes. The end point of each of these chreodes serves as the sign stimulus or germ structure for the next. As in morphogenesis, if the normal pathway of activity is disturbed, the same end point can be reached by a different route.

The ways the wasps react to damage of the funnel while it is under construction illustrate these general principles. First, in experiments carried out in the wild, funnels that were almost complete were broken off while the wasps were away collecting mud. However much of the funnels was missing, the wasps recommenced construction and rebuilt them to their original form; the funnels were regenerated. If they were broken off again, they were again rebuilt. This process was repeated seven times with one particular wasp, which showed no signs of reduced vigor as it rebuilt its funnel again and again.

Second, the experimenter stole almost completed funnels from some wasps and transplanted them to other nest holes where funnel construction was just beginning. When these wasps came back with pellets of mud and found the instant funnels, they examined them briefly inside and out and then finished constructing them as if they were their own.

Third, the experimenter heaped sand around funnel stems while they were being constructed. The stems are normally about an inch long. If a nearly completed one was buried until only about 1/ 8 inch was showing, the wasp built it up until it was again about an inch above the ground.

Finally, various holes were made in the funnels at different stages of construction. If these were made at an early stage or if they involved removal of material from the bells of the funnels, the damage was detected at once, and the damaged area was repaired with strips of mud until the funnel assumed its previous form.

The most interesting behavior occurred in response to a type of damage that would probably never happen under natural conditions: a circular hole made in the neck of the funnel after the bell of the funnel had been built. The wasps on their return soon noticed these holes and examined them carefully from the inside and the outside, but they were unable to repair them from the inside because the surface was too slippery for them to get a grip. After some delay the wasps started adding mud to the outside of the hole. This is just the type of activity that occurs when they start constructing a funnel over the entrance hole of the nest. The holes in the neck of the funnel thus came to act as a sign stimulus for the entire process of funnel construction, and a complete new funnel was made.

Thus behavioral fields, like morphogenetic fields, have an inherent goal directedness and enable animals to reach their behavioral goals in spite of unexpected disturbances, just as developing embryos can regulate after damage and produce normal organisms, and just as plants and animals can regenerate lost structures.

Click to expand...

Sheldrake's hypothesis matches well with the work of psychologist Carl Jung. Next we take a look at some basic concepts of Jungian psychology.

Jung's view of the Unconscious

Those familiar with Timothy Wilson's "Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious" will have a good idea of the unconscious in general. Jung provided a detailed account of the complex structure and function of the unconscious.

The center of the conscious part of the psyche is the ego. The unconscious "starts" with the personal unconscious layer. This layer contains repressed instinctive drives. In this context, it is important to differentiate between repressed and suppressed drives. Suppression indicates that a drive or emotion is acknowledged i.e it is brought to consciousness but not allowed to determine behavior. Repression on the other hand refers to an unconscious drive or wish.

[quote author=Jung]
[V]ery often, as a result of the suppression of an inadmissible wish, the thin wall between wishing and being conscious of the wish is broken, so that the wish becomes unconscious. It is forgotten, and its place is taken by a more or less rational justification – if, indeed, any motivation is sought at all. This process, whereby an inadmissible wish becomes unconscious, is called repression, as distinct from suppression, which presupposes that the wish remained conscious. Although repressed and forgotten, the incompatible content – whether it consist of wishes or of painful memories – nevertheless exists, and its unperceived presence influences the conscious processes. This influence expresses itself in the form of peculiar disturbances of the conscious, normal functions;
[/quote]

Along with repressed drives, personal layer of the unconscious contains forgotten personal memories.

[quote author=Jung]
We have already taken cognizance of repressions as contents of the unconscious, and to these we must add everything that we have forgotten. When a thing is forgotten, it does not mean that it is extinguished; it simply means that the memory has become subliminal. Its energy-charge has sunk so low that it can no longer appear in consciousness; but, though lost to consciousness, it is not lost to the unconscious.
[/quote]

The personal unconscious also contains sense perceptions which did not cross over into the threshold of conscious awareness.

[quote author=Jung]
Besides things that have been forgotten, subliminal perceptions form part of the contents of the unconscious. These may be sense perceptions occurring below the stimulus-threshold of conscious hearing, or in the peripheral field of vision; or they may be apperceptions, by which are meant perceptions of endopsychic or external processes.
[/quote]

These are all contents of the personal unconscious layer.

[quote author=Jung]
All this material constitutes the personal unconscious. We call it personal because it consists entirely of acquisitions deriving from personal life. Therefore, when anything falls into the unconscious it is taken up in the network of associations formed by this unconscious material. Associative connections of high intensity may then be produced, which cross over or rise up into consciousness in the form of inspirations, intuitions, ‘lucky ideas,’ and so on.
[/quote]

This associative mode of thinking is referred to as System1 thinking in Daniel Kahneman's book "Thinking: Fast and Slow".

Beyond this layer of the personal unconscious lies what Jung calls the collective unconscious. Jung's discovery of the collective unconscious is based on empirical observations and not philosophical speculation.

[quote author=Jung]
The concept of a personal unconscious does not, however, enable us fully to grasp the nature of the unconscious. If the unconscious were only personal, it would in theory be possible to trace all the fantasies of an insane person back to individual experiences and impressions. No doubt a large proportion of the fantasy-material could be reduced to his personal history, but there are certain fantasies whose roots in the individual’s previous history one would seek for in vain. What sort of fantasies are these? They are, in a word, mythological fantasies. They are elements which do not correspond to any events or experiences of personal life, but only to myths.
[/quote]

Mythology is often another name for mythicized history as has been discussed elsewhere. The collective unconscious contains memories - of the ancestral line, of the country/culture, of the species and more. The collective unconscious is quite compatible with Sheldrake's conception of morphic fields.

[quote author=Sheldrake]
In considering the morphic resonance theory of memory, we might ask: if we tune into our own memories, then why don't we tune into other people's as well? I think we do, and the whole basis of the approach I am suggesting is that there is a collective memory to which we are all tuned which forms a background against which our own experience develops and against which our own individual memories develop. This concept is very similar to the notion of the collective unconscious.

Jung thought of the collective unconscious as a collective memory, the collective memory of humanity. He thought that people would be more tuned into members of their own family and race and social and cultural group, but that nevertheless there would be a background resonance from all humanity: a pooled or averaged experience of basic things that all people experience (e.g., maternal behavior and various social patterns and structures of experience and thought). It would not be a memory from particular persons in the past so much as an average of the basic forms of memory structures;
[/quote]

Such memory structures can be accessed by humans as well as animals and plants. Sheldrake's morphic resonance theory requires such a collective unconscious.

[quote author=Sheldrake]
Morphic resonance theory would lead to a radical reaffirmation of Jung's concept of the collective unconscious.
...........
The approach I am putting forward is very similar to Jung's idea of the collective unconscious. The main difference is that Jung's idea was applied primarily to human experience and human collective memory. What I am suggesting is that a very similar principle operates throughout the entire universe, not just in human beings. If the kind of radical paradigm shift I am talking about goes on within biology-if the hypothesis of morphic resonance is even approximately correct-then Jung's idea of the collective unconscious would become a mainstream idea: Morphogenic fields and the concept of the collective unconscious would completely change the context of modern psychology.
[/quote]

Coming back to Jung, his concept of a psychological "complex" (which leads to the concept of archetypes) is related to what we refer to as running "programs" . A complex is an emotionally toned psychic content of a partially autonomous nature. The autonomous nature of the complex indicates that it is not entirely under individual possession or control and exists independently of the individual. Complexes are said to consist of an archetypal core which gives them their semi-autonomous properties since archetypes are completely autonomous in character.

[quote author=Jung]
The term ‘autonomous complex’ has often met with opposition, unjustifiably, it seems to me, because the active contents of the unconscious do behave in a way I cannot describe better than by the word ‘autonomous.’ The term is meant to indicate the capacity of the complexes to resist conscious intentions, and to come and go as they please. Judging by all we know about them, they are psychic entities which are outside the control of the conscious mind. They have been split off from consciousness and lead a separate existence in the dark realm of the unconscious, being at all times ready to hinder or reinforce the conscious functioning.

A deeper study of the complexes leads logically to the problem of their origin, and as to this a number of different theories are current. Theories apart, experience shows that complexes always contain something like a conflict, or at least are either the cause or the effect of a conflict. At any rate the characteristics of conflict – shock, upheaval, mental agony, inner strife – are peculiar to the complexes. They are the ‘sore spots,’ the bêtes noires , the ‘skeletons in the cupboard’ which we do not like to remember and still less to be reminded of by others, but which frequently come back to mind unbidden and in the most unwelcome fashion. They always contain memories, wishes, fears, duties, needs, or insights which somehow we can never really grapple with, and for this reason they constantly interfere with our conscious life in a disturbing and usually a harmful way.
.......................

These characteristics of the complex throw a significant light on its origin. It obviously arises from the clash between a demand of adaptation and the individual’s constitutional inability to meet the challenge.

[/quote]

This brings us to archetypes. Archetypes constitute the collective unconscious. The term archetype was popularized by psychologist Carl Jung. What exactly is an archetype? The answer is not straight-forward and the concept as used by Jung evolved in his writings over the years. I suspect Jung's conception of archetypes is very close to information fields which makes it difficult to describe accurately. Jung faced a lot of attacks and was ultimately relegated to the fringes of science due in no small part to his theory of archetypes. In this context, we can look at the archetypes in relation to instincts.

Archetypes can be looked at as primordial image-makers of the collective unconscious. An archetypal image is filled out with content which depends on the species, society and culture. If we consider Mother as an archetype, the image of mother varies not only among different species but also in case of humans, it is further conditioned by socio-cultural factors. The personal mother fills out the content of this image in the individual case. It is interesting to note in this regard that some animal studies show that during a small time window during development this personal mother image gets filled. Ethologist Konrad Lorenz showed that during a certain period after hatching, young birds (ducklings and goslings) were ready to follow the mother and they would take as mother anyone who is appropriately introduced at this stage. Young birds took Lorenz himself as the mother figure in his experiments. Such experiments have been repeated consistently across different species of animals.


Archetypes can thus elicit instinctive modes of behavior through appropriate openings (like the mother imprinting for animals). This is at the level of action in the external world. In the case of humans, archetypes induce instinctive inner expressions - like feelings, images and mythical ideas. There is a commonality in such feelings, images or ideas across different cultures and societies and this is termed archetypal in nature. Constellation of an archetype in the unconscious of an individual can be a source of creative restructuring of the whole psyche or lead to pathological states and actions.

Since instincts are generally shared among members of the species and also across species, in Jung and Sheldrake's models, they are derived from the collective unconscious where archetypes belong. One can possibly argue whether instincts came first or the archetypes which would take us into philosophy and in that regard Jung considered archetypes as fundamental following the line of panpsychism. Jung considered archetypes as "the a priori determinants of all psychic processes and "archetypes are simply the forms that instincts assume".

Jung had used some contradictory terms in relation to archetypes which led to confusion. Here is an excerpt where he clarifies his stand on archetypes.

[quote author=Jung]
Again and again I encounter the mistaken notion that an archetype is determined in regard to its content, in other words that it is a kind of unconscious idea (if such an expression be permissible). It is necessary to point out once more that archetypes are not determined as to their content, but only as regards their form, and then only to a very limited degree. A primordial image is determined as to its content only when it has become conscious and is therefore filled out with the material of conscious experience … The archetype in itself is empty and purely formal, nothing but a possibility of representation which is given a priori .
[/quote]

In the above, it seems to me that Jung is referring to information without using that term.

Thank you so much for this important missing piece of the puzzle. It connects the dots together for me in easier to understand language.

I have one question:


Quote from: Jung

The term ‘autonomous complex’ has often met with opposition, unjustifiably, it seems to me, because the active contents of the unconscious do behave in a way I cannot describe better than by the word ‘autonomous.’ The term is meant to indicate the capacity of the complexes to resist conscious intentions, and to come and go as they please. Judging by all we know about them, they are psychic entities which are outside the control of the conscious mind. They have been split off from consciousness and lead a separate existence in the dark realm of the unconscious, being at all times ready to hinder or reinforce the conscious functioning.

Does the bold part relate to progams?
Programmes that are not recognized or denied as being/coming from/controlling our decisions. (aka Seytan/ego?)

What is the 'predator's mind' ie the outside influences? Maybe I am confused with the term used ' outside/external.

I would equate predator's mind as being thoughts that we recognize as not being our own. For instance 4Dsts or other 'manipulations', attachments. Plus 'we inherited their minds' - eg baroque, jealousy, fear of being found out, etc.

Is there anywhere that I can find the terminology used in the 4th way and the terminology used in cognitive science for comparison. I would attempt to do this myself but my knowledge in this area is still not strong enough. Though it would be a good learning mechanism and also save a lot of time in confusion of terms.

happyliza said:

[quote author=Jung]

The term ‘autonomous complex’ has often met with opposition, unjustifiably, it seems to me, because the active contents of the unconscious do behave in a way I cannot describe better than by the word ‘autonomous.’ The term is meant to indicate the capacity of the complexes to resist conscious intentions, and to come and go as they please. Judging by all we know about them, they are psychic entities which are outside the control of the conscious mind. They have been split off from consciousness and lead a separate existence in the dark realm of the unconscious, being at all times ready to hinder or reinforce the conscious functioning.

Click to expand...

Does the bold part relate to progams?
Programmes that are not recognized or denied as being/coming from/controlling our decisions. (aka Seytan/ego?)
[/quote]

I think so though I would not equate the ego/conscious mind with Seytan if by the latter you are referring to the Satan of theology.

[quote author=happyliza]
What is the 'predator's mind' ie the outside influences? Maybe I am confused with the term used ' outside/external.
[/quote]

In psychological terms, outside/external refers to content that is outside the conscious ego and belongs to the unconscious. It is far more difficult to recognize which layer of the unconscious this external content is coming from - is it repressed content arising out of the personal unconscious of the individual or does it belong to the collective unconscious? In my current understanding, generally speaking, the predator's mind is a term used to denote psychic structures that belong in the collective unconscious. It influences the individual psyche through the medium of complexes which arise in the individual through his/her life experiences consisting among other things of traumatic incidents. Such incidents represent a situation where the adaptive capabilities of the individual were overwhelmed and resulted in mechanisms of dissociation where psychic contents got split off and went down into the personal layer of the unconscious as repressed content.

[quote author=happyliza]
Is there anywhere that I can find the terminology used in the 4th way and the terminology used in cognitive science for comparison. I would attempt to do this myself but my knowledge in this area is still not strong enough. Though it would be a good learning mechanism and also save a lot of time in confusion of terms.
[/quote]

The threads in this board "Psychology and Cognitive Science" are the best source I know of. It is an ongoing effort to supply the connection between metaphysical terms with what is known from science (or fringe science - which is where Jung and Sheldrake belong according to mainstream/ popular wisdom.)

Thank you for the explanation Obyvatel.

The timing has come in handy for me as I am currently going through the concepts of the the 4th way for the 3rd time (but making copious notes from all the underlining this time) to better understand the right way of doing things and in which order!

Psychology and Cognitive Science has been my main-stay for a while now, wholly intriguing, together with the reading materials. I really appreciate the threads you have contributed to. I am still behind on Timothy Wilson and Kahneman but luckily a friend from the forum has offered to order and bring them out for me together with HoM. For which I am very grateful.

Very interesting posts, obyvatel! When reading about morphic resonance fields and how they relate to instinct, what comes to my mind is the concept of the "ecological niche". From Wikipedia:

In ecology, a niche is a term describing the way of life of a species. Each species is thought to have a separate, unique niche. The ecological niche describes how an organism or population responds to the distribution of resources and competitors (e.g., by growing when resources are abundant, and when predators, parasites and pathogens are scarce) and how it in turn alters those same factors (e.g., limiting access to resources by other organisms, acting as a food source for predators and a consumer of prey).

[...]

Parameters

The different dimensions, or plot axes, of a niche represent different biotic and abiotic variables. These factors may include descriptions of the organism's life history, habitat, trophic position (place in the food chain), and geographic range. According to the competitive exclusion principle, no two species can occupy the same niche in the same environment for a long time. The parameters of a realized niche are described by the realized niche width of that species.

Click to expand...

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_niche

So it occurs to me that, perhaps in 2D, morphic resonance fields influence the development of a given species' ecological niche (perhaps the 2D equivalent to Archetypes?), by way of the environmental conditions, inter-species relationships, and pre-existent genetic potentials.

In 3D, it may be that morphic resonance fields influence consciousness in a similar way. These fields could act upon the Collective/Personal unconscious dynamic instead of the purely physical environmental stimuli, in addition to interpersonal relationships and genetic factors. This might lead certain conscious individuals to identify with a particular Archetype, and may in turn encourage them to adapt to fit the "role" or "niche" it describes.

Hopefully this makes some kind of sense, fwiw.

[quote author=Khalsa]

So it occurs to me that, perhaps in 2D, morphic resonance fields influence the development of a given species' ecological niche (perhaps the 2D equivalent to Archetypes?), by way of the environmental conditions, inter-species relationships, and pre-existent genetic potentials.
[/quote]

Yes. Also, in Sheldrake's hypothesis, morphic fields are influenced by the actions of the species as well - so it is a two-way street exchanging matter, energy and information. And the development of 2D species and ecology is also greatly dependent upon the actions of the 3D species (humans) and their contributions to the information field. I was reminded of a comment Gurdjieff made in "Beelzebub's Tales" where he said that the inner mental attitude as well as hostile actions of humans are responsible for the instinctive ferocity shown by certain species of wild animals towards humans. Gurdjieff was perhaps being literal here imo and we can say that human behavior has influenced the instinctive behavior of animal species through information fields. From a Jungian sense, we can say that human actions have constellated certain archetypes - i.e given certain types of content to the primordial image template - which animals have internalized in their instinctive repertoire.

[quote author=Khalsa]

In 3D, it may be that morphic resonance fields influence consciousness in a similar way. These fields could act upon the Collective/Personal unconscious dynamic instead of the purely physical environmental stimuli, in addition to interpersonal relationships and genetic factors. This might lead certain conscious individuals to identify with a particular Archetype, and may in turn encourage them to adapt to fit the "role" or "niche" it describes.
[/quote]

Yes, and here too, the 3D level can be influenced by levels above it. As one traverses the density hierarchy, the potential for awareness and free-will is greater - so the choices of actions are more, and hence the possibility of constellating different archetypal images. If this potential is not consciously utilized, then at the human level the psychic contents sink into the unconscious. One way to think about it is in terms of an analogy like in the parable of talents. One has some money but refuses to utilize it and buries it underground. That money can then be stolen and utilized for nefarious purposes by others. We humans are collectively throwing away our creative potential (which belongs to the category of instinct for some humans) and those psychic contents are being used to sustain the behavioral morphic fields to serve the needs of 4D STS denizens.

Scientist Mae Wan Ho's description of the life as a process of becoming whole and the life system being composed of a nested hierarchy (like Russian dolls) of sub-systems which exchange matter, energy and information constantly is an useful one. It correlates well to the view of the universe that the C's have provided. In this system, the term ecological niche can be applied at different levels - from cells, tissues, physiological systems etc in the body to plants, animals, humans , ..... on earth, to perhaps the planets and stars ... the whole universe. We are beginning to learn the dynamics and details of how this type of exchange takes place - osit.

[quote author=Khalsa]
Hopefully this makes some kind of sense, fwiw.
[/quote]

Yes, me too.

Thanks for that great summary, obyvatel. It seems to sum up G's and C's cosmology including consciousness and information.

Instincts can be thought of as having biological, psychological as well as spiritual or archetypal facets. Biologically, instincts can be observed and studied through the instinctive substratum (discussed here ). Major defects in the instinctive substratum lead to various forms of psychopathologies and Cluster B personality disorders which is a subject of study in ponerology. Here let us focus on the psychological effects of instinct on "normal" people.

Psychologically, instincts have a multi-level nature. They are drivers of both emotions and thoughts in humans. One of the key features of modern civilization is that instincts are in constant conflict with culture or so-called civilizing influences. Instincts have been denigrated as we became civilized and cultured. Consequently, in a modern urban dwelling person, instincts are more often than not repressed . Repressed instincts sink into the unconscious from where they act to disrupt and influence our conscious intentions and acts. Modern cognitive psychology has made it clear that we are mostly in the dark about the real reasons behind our behavior but we are adept at creating rational narratives and convincing ourselves and others otherwise. Macranney's "You Are Not So Smart", Wilson's "Adaptive Unconscious", Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow" discussed extensively in the forum are rife with examples proving this point. Jung had remarked about this

[quote author=Jung]
No superhuman intellect is needed to see through the shallowness of many of our rationalizations and to detect the real motive, the compelling instinct behind them. As a result of our artificial rationalizations it may seem to us that we were actuated not by instinct but by conscious motives. Naturally I do not mean to say that by careful training man has not succeeded in partially converting his instincts into acts of the will. Instinct has been domesticated, but the basic motive still remains instinct. There is no doubt that we have succeeded in enveloping a large number of instincts in rational explanations to the point where we can no longer recognize the original motive behind so many veils. In this way it seems as though we possessed practically no instincts any more.

But if we apply the Rivers criterion of the disproportionate all-or-none reaction to human behaviour, we find innumerable cases where exaggerated reactions occur. Exaggeration, indeed, is a universal human peculiarity, although everybody carefully tries to explain his reactions in terms of rational motives. There is never any lack of good arguments, but the fact of exaggeration remains. And why is it that a man does not do or say, give or take, just as much as is needed, or reasonable, or justifiable in a given situation, but frequently so much more or less? Precisely because an unconscious process is released in him that runs its course without the aid of reason and therefore falls short of, or exceeds, the degree of rational motivation. This phenomenon is so uniform and so regular that we can only call it instinctive, though no one in this situation likes to admit the instinctive nature of his behaviour. I am therefore inclined to believe that human behaviour is influenced by instinct to a far higher degree than is generally supposed, and that we are prone to a great many falsifications of judgment in this respect, again as a result of an instinctive exaggeration of the rationalistic standpoint.
[/quote]

When instinct is denied, repressed, or over-intellectualized, then the psychological result is an autonomous complex and neurosis. The physiological result can be various ailments or even major diseases - as is borne out in Dr Gabor Mate's "When the Body Says No" ( sott link ). Major addictions often have their root in repressed instincts as well - the archetypal nature of which is captured in the title of Dr Mate's "In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction".

Jung said

[quote author=Jung]
Too much of the animal distorts the civilized man, too much civilization makes sick animals.
[/quote]


We have lower level instincts which we share with animals; however in human beings these animal instincts operate differently. On the one hand, animal instincts in humans can become far more rapacious than the worst natural predator. On the other hand, it is possible to transform these animal instincts to higher levels and more refined forms, converting them from blind compulsive urges to fountains of energy placed at the disposal of self. Such inner transformation was the goal of spiritual alchemy. Such transfomations become possible because alongside instincts like self-preservation/survival, there are higher level instincts like the instict towards self-perfection which can potentially become operational in humans through right efforts and right development. The sense of self undergoes significant transformation including not only the body and its material needs but also ethical and spiritual concerns for the larger community of living beings. A higher level instinct can transform the structure and function of a lower level instinct. Intellectual efforts are not effective in this area - they can suppress or worse repress the instincts but cannot transform them. Instincts command a lot of energy which is sorely needed in serious transformation and development of human consciousness. Suppression or repression of instincts leads to this energy not being available for developmental work. In fact a loss or injury to instinct leaves one vulnerable to the machinations of evil - in human as well as archetypal forms, as noted by Jungian analyst Clarissa Pinkola Estes in "Women Who Run With The Wolves".

As mentioned earlier, at its core, instincts are shared collective tendencies, not individual possessions. The same is true for archetypes or more correctly archetypal images. What is individual is human will, which is crucially dependent on the level of energy available to the conscious part of the psyche, the ego. Conflict between this individual will with lower level blind compulsive instinctive urges starts off the process of transformation - the "waking up process of the Work in 4th Way terms or the individuation process in Jungian psychology. Though Gurdjieff and Jung approached the process from different starting points and used different terminologies, their views share a lot of common ground. Gurdjieff's comment that the real consciousness of humans was actually their subconscious corresponds well with the Jungian view of the unconscious. G's struggle between "yes and no" - the process of friction - corresponds to Jung's internal conflict caused by the "tension of the opposites". The process of fusion is carried out in Jungian individuation by the transcendent function (to be discussed in some later post), leading to the Real I for G and the archetype of the higher transcendent Self for Jung. So, imo, delving into aspects of Jungian psychology is worth the effort to supplement and enhance the understanding of the Work.

Before going into a classification of instincts, here is an interesting passage from Jung

[quote author=Jung]
Instinct is not an isolated thing, nor can it be isolated in practice. It always brings in its train archetypal contents of a spiritual nature, which are at once its foundation and its limitation. In other words, an instinct is always and inevitably coupled with something like a philosophy of life, however archaic, unclear, and hazy this may be. Instinct stimulates thought, and if a man does not think of his own free will, then you get compulsive thinking, for the two poles of the psyche, the physiological and the mental, are indissolubly connected.
[/quote]

Instincts - which are the form taken by archetypes - are at the core of compulsive behavior and compulsive thinking in humans. So in order to recognize our "programs", it is useful to understand instincts. As a determinant of human behavior, instincts are never encountered in their pure natural form. What determines our behavior and thinking is the structure formed as a result of interaction of the instinct with the individual experience of reality.

Hunger can be treated as a characteristic instinct which is related to the fundamental goal of self-preservation found in living systems. All living beings we know of feed on some form of energy for their existence. In ISOTM, Gurdjieff identified what a creature eats as one of the fundamental cosmic traits that define "beingness". This hunger however expresses itself in human life in varied forms. This is readily expressed in our language through metaphors - for example, he is hungry for power or she is hungry for praise. Raw instinctual hunger can be "denatured" and become greed and give rise to insatiability in areas of human experience far removed from its original context.

One example this can take is illustrated by the image of the insatiably hungry wolf. There can be people who are unconsciously driven by this archetypal form.

[quote author= Marie Von Franz in The Problem of the Puer Aeternus]
If you invite such people to supper, they are not pleased but simply furious when you don't invite them again next week. If you give a tip, they are not grateful, for the next time if you don't give them more, they say, "What? Only a franc?
...............
The worse are those who in early childhood have been starved of love. They go about pale and bitter with a "nobody loves me" expression, but if one makes a kind gesture, there is no appreciation, only the desire for more. If you don't give more, then they are furious and enraged. You could go on and on and pour the whole world into such an open mouth - and it wouldn't help. You could throw everything in; do anything you like - they would never find it enough. It is like the abyss of death: the mouth never shuts; there is only demand for more. It is a kind of driven passion for eating and eating ....

One day one can only say no whenever such greed comes up because there is no end to it. It is a divine-demonic quality. It is the thing which says, "More! Still more! Still more and more!".
.............
Some people who have this wolf problem realize that this is kind of greedy wanting more and more and eating everybody and everything up is mad and unreasonable, so they don't let it out. They behave very correctly and never ask for more, but you always suspect that it is just politeness behind which is caged the starving wolf. Such people then suddenly fall into the wolf and come out with terrific and impossible demands which cannot be fulfilled.
[/quote]

The character of the "hungry tiger" in Frank Baum's OZ series of books displays some of these characteristics in a light-hearted way.

[quote author=Wikipedia]
The Hungry Tiger is a massive beast who is friends with the Cowardly Lion. He is always hungry no matter how much he eats , and longs to eat a "fat baby," though he never would because his conscience will not allow him to do so.
[/quote]

The tiger is quite morose and is in constant conflict between his hunger and his conscience. Sometimes he cannot contain himself and asks some other character if they will allow him to eat them up (impossible demand which cannot be fulfilled) and on being refused accepts it graciously.

From a psychological perspective, the tiger character has some insight into his state and has brought the conflict between the lower instinct and higher moral consideration into consciousness. The tiger however has not come to a resolution of this conflict - so he periodically falls into making demands which cannot be fulfilled. He also goes between periodically starving himself (what is the use of eating, I will be hungry again) and gorging up enormous quantities of food given to him.

Humans often behave like this fictional tiger. Recognizing this in oneself and others in appropriate situations is an essential life lesson for those aspiring towards higher development. Stripping away the varied layers of narratives which try to explain, wrongly, the reason behind our behaviors is no small task and needs persistent attention and effort and help from others. Once the lies are stripped, we encounter the instinct or archetypal image that lies behind it all.


Intellectual insight into the problem is the beginning. In this example, knowing there is an insatiable hunger in some particular form which gets triggered in certain situations and drives our thoughts and behavior is very useful. One realization that seems important is that the archetypal image or instinct that has us in its sway is not something that belongs wholly to us but has its independent existence in the collective unconscious. What this means practically is that we are not likely to succeed in our efforts to "kill it" and beating ourselves up over failing to do so is a waste of energy. We need to deal with it strategically - as when dealing with a "force of nature". We may need to take shelter from its onslaught at times and we may need to figure out personally relevant ways of using its energy for our own developmental purposes. It takes time and effort and revisiting and re-experiencing the dynamic many times, hopefully with more insight each time.

Psychologist Dr Dabrowski's work - especially " Multilevelness of Emotional and Instinctive Functions " deals with the dynamics of the process which can arise to transform such drives and use the energy for development.

This discussion on the collective unconscious reminded me of the alpha states discussed by Seth. I'm not sure what book it's from, but I think it might have been Seth speaks. The following quote is form _http://www.u-sphere.com/index.php?title=Mod%C3%A8les_exotiques.

Alpha States Seth outlined a «map» of the spectrum of altered neurological focus that provides the simplest of overviews for accessing «hidden» aspects of our psyche.

There are five main regions:

A1a (enhanced creativity, concentration, study, refreshment, rest, meditation)
A1b (horizontal into alternate realities, group/mass probabilities, racial matters, civilization)
A1c (greater mobility, moving further away from present physical laws)

A2 (reincarnational selves, issues, and beliefs)
A3 (mass issues, geographical histories, racial info, species of animals)
A4 (beneath matter, source of civilization-changing inspiration, available in sleep state, personal conversions originate here)
A5 (seldom reached, meeting ground of clear communication for any aspect self including those from probable and alternate systems, no-time, out-of-body experiences can occur here)

This template does not imply a linear progression through a spectrum of consciousness, like climbing up and down a ladder, but a more multidimensional, sideways, rightways, leftways, topways and bottomways path. In other words, you don't necessarily move through one to get to the next one. If you think of your conscious mind as a radio that receives and translates energy transmissions from your inner self over a spectrum of «stations,» you can simply change to any station at the push of a button.

Also, the alpha states outlined here do not map directly to the beliefs of current dream researchers. In other words contemporary dream researchers define the alpha state as a relaxed state that precedes sleep, occurring in the brain over a spectrum from roughly eight to fourteen cycles per second. So Seth's use of alpha states should not be confused with the more popular scientific belief of alpha states. Still, Seth's A1-A5 offers a «map» in which to conceptualize and interpret paranormal experiences in terms of lucid dreams, projections, near-death experiences, trance and other altered states.

Click to expand...

So perhaps these alpha states are different ways of tuning into the various morphic fields.


Another thought I had while reading was that since archetypes have no content only form, then perhaps they're related to the neurological hardware or architecture of a species brain. This might explain why archetypes are inherited and are only later filled in from an individual's personal experience.


EDIT: changed word: "morphogenic" to "morphic"

obyvatel said:

Thus behavioral fields, like morphogenetic fields, have an inherent goal directedness and enable animals to reach their behavioral goals in spite of unexpected disturbances, just as developing embryos can regulate after damage and produce normal organisms, and just as plants and animals can regenerate lost structures.

Click to expand...

Sheldrake's hypothesis matches well with the work of psychologist Carl Jung. Next we take a look at some basic concepts of Jungian psychology.

Click to expand...

Hi obyvatel,

Could You or anyone who knows explain in simple words what does it mean:

1. behavioral field
2. morphogenetic field


Edit=Quote

Mikel said:

Hi obyvatel,

Could You or anyone who knows explain in simple words what does it mean:

1. behavioral field
2. morphogenetic field

Click to expand...

I'll give it a go, via a quote from 'Earth changes and Human-Cosmic Connection':

SHOTW3 said:

A field is a space that has the same value for each point in space and time. Thus a field is non-local: properties are established and changed instantaneously for all the points covered by the field. In this sense, fields contradict Einstein’s postulate according to which light speed is the maximum possible speed. If a change occurring in a field affects all its points at the same time, some sort of superluminal (faster-than-light) process must be occurring.

In recent decades, a number of scientists from various research domains have independently identified an unknown ‘dimension’ in relation to matter, energy, and information. This hidden ‘dimension’ exhibits the properties of a field, a deeper reality which transcends time and space and is permeated with information.

British biologist Rupert Sheldrake’s morphogenetic field holds the information relative to the differentiated development of individual cells. Sheldrake’s morphic field holds all the information relative to the collective knowledge held by a specific species/element.

Click to expand...

The field is a deeper level of reality made of information. The morphogenetic field informs our genes where in space and time to place our cells and organs, and the behavioral or morphic fields informs a species, culture or individual on learned behaviors, which would be relevant to instincts. These two proposed fields would fall under what Pierre and Laura have coined the Cosmic Information Field, the complete underlying information field with which wave reading units would interact with.

Thank you for this overview, it`s not easy to keep the concepts of the archetypes, collective unconscious, the Ego and the personal unconscious in the mind at the same time and create a coherent line between them since they all have great depths. I think this thread helped me with this.

With some fear of just repeating what have just been written, I want to put out my basic assumptions regarding the Archetypes and see if this makes sense to anyone else since when dealing with this it seems one can use many approaches and different vocabulary, but still reach the same conclusion, or on the other hand just think that one does:

1. The collective unconscious is an inherent part of our psychological makeup from which our instincts derive from. For instance, we have several basic emotional systems like fear, play, rage, lust etc. and these systems comes with little scripted information but are forms ready to be filled with conscious and subconscious experience. The instincts in themselves are the energy behind the drives that lead us to action. It is however, our learned reaction-patterns, which determines how we act out these drives and reach our relative goals. And the goals in themselves are fulfilled by the path of least resistance, meaning, it is the information about the world we have received that determines on which level the archetypal images/instincts manifests and drives us.

2. One of my main problems is trying to get a concise explanation of why one also strives to fulfill what one could call higher goals like self-knowledge, self-development, helping others etc. besides from the main purpose of fulfilling our basic needs. This is answered by the fact that we also have instincts to these particular goals or rather that the instincts in themselves are multilayered. (I have read some of Dabrowskis material and the framework of the theory of positive disintegration, seeing the connection in this topic I will pursue that line.)

3. The main struggle towards individuation is the alignment between the lower self-preservation instincts of the conscious Ego and the total energy of the archetypes which not only has the possibility to lower self-preservation, but higher self-development through making the archetypes conscious leading to self-knowledge.

4. As the archetype images are determined by their form rather than their content they are in themselves “whole” but our conscious and personal unconscious attitude to the world and ourselves determines what parts are repressed, developed and available. This results in the “tension between opposites”, between the differentiated Ego and the totality of our psyche. The conflict between the whole and the part is also what complexes arise from.

5. Archetypes are wordless and cannot be rationally explained. You can only discover the archetypes through its content, and words are a poor substitute for the experience of an archetype. This is because they are inherent and sub-cortical and was not created by our higher brain centers where words and thought reside. You have to feel it and experience it, and the only way of explaining them are through metaphors, myths and symbolism. This makes the process difficult because when under the sway of emotions, instincts etc. you will be playing out some drama of you unconscious. And you will not see it before after the play has ended. You can see the result, but everything that leads up to the action is unconscious.
This leads me to a question about how one can set up a model to help observe how the dynamics of the unconscious affects the conscious actions. A simple model to follow when trying to observe this could be something like this:

Stimuli (explicit/implicit) -> Personal unconscious(action/thinking patterns) -> Conscious Ego-reaction
Stimuli(explicit/implicit) -> Collective unconscious(instincts/drives) -> Personal unconscious(action/thinking patterns) -> Conscious Ego-reaction

To my understanding, to get a better understanding about specifics in the model is through researching more into books on neuroscience recommend by the forum.

obyvatel said:

As mentioned earlier, at its core, instincts are shared collective tendencies, not individual possessions. The same is true for archetypes or more correctly archetypal images. What is individual is human will, which is crucially dependent on the level of energy available to the conscious part of the psyche, the ego. Conflict between this individual will with lower level blind compulsive instinctive urges starts off the process of transformation - the "waking up process of the Work in 4th Way terms or the individuation process in Jungian psychology. Though Gurdjieff and Jung approached the process from different starting points and used different terminologies, their views share a lot of common ground. Gurdjieff's comment that the real consciousness of humans was actually their subconscious corresponds well with the Jungian view of the unconscious. G's struggle between "yes and no" - the process of friction - corresponds to Jung's internal conflict caused by the "tension of the opposites". The process of fusion is carried out in Jungian individuation by the transcendent function (to be discussed in some later post), leading to the Real I for G and the archetype of the higher transcendent Self for Jung. So, imo, delving into aspects of Jungian psychology is worth the effort to supplement and enhance the understanding of the Work.

Click to expand...

I am also very interested to see what will written on the transcendent function, since these posts have already helped me bring the concepts down to earth so I can think more conceptual about the whole area.