Archetypes and Strange Attractors

A Bit About Archetypes

Van Eenwyk (1997) talks about chaos theory as it applies to ideas found Jung’s Analytical Psychology.  He reminds us that part of Jung’s genius was to see similar unconscious patterns in a wide variety of behaviors from normal to psychotic.  In working with his “crazy” patients, Jung recognized symbolic patterns and saw order in what seemed to be disorder—there was a method to their madness.  This is how he came to the idea of the collective unconscious and his theory of the archetypes.  The collective unconscious is impersonal or transpersonal as “it is detached from anything personal and is common to all men since its contents can be found everywhere” (Jung, 1943/ 1972, p. 66, para. 103).  Archetypes are the primordial images that are common to all humanity. As organizing principles of the psyche, archetypes “are the psychic correlates of the instincts” (Odajnyk, 1976, p. 15), and allow us to perceive in patterns and categories.  Jung says of them: “The primordial images are the most ancient and most universal ‘thought-forms’ of humanity.  They are as much feelings as thoughts: indeed, they lead their own independent life” (Jung, 1943/1972, p. 66, para. 104) . . . and are relatively autonomous.  Jung goes on further to say that archetypes are ideas that have:

been stamped on the human brain for aeons.  That is why it lies ready to hand in the unconscious of every man . . . . The greatest and best thoughts of man shape themselves upon these primordial images as upon a blueprint.  I have often been asked where the archetypes or primordial images come from.  It seems to me that their origin can only be explained by assuming them to be deposits of constantly repeated experiences of humanity . . . . The archetype is a kind of readiness to produce over and over again the same or similar mythical ideas . . . recurrent impressions made by subjective reactions.” (pp. 69-70, para. 109)

Jung felt that there were two kinds of dynamics operating in the psyche: cyclical and developmental.  The cyclical processes Van Eenwyk (1997) refers to as the synchronic aspects of individuation, which he tells us “constantly repeat themselves through the establishment of the tension of opposites, their resolution and the subsequent appearance of new tensions between the resolution and new possibilities” (p. 16). The developmental processes which Van Eenwyk terms diachronic “build upon the synchronic dynamics and move through time . . . they begin somewhere and end up somewhere else” (p. 16).

Using the previously described ideas of chaos theory, especially as they culminate in strange attractors, we can see how the repetitive synchronic dynamics of the psyche, which are common to all people interacting with themselves can become so complex that they defy descriptions and yet produce new patterns that are loosely based on the old.  Over time, the diachronic dynamics develop and unfold from the synchronic and this gives us infinite complexity, and yet overall patterns at the same time.  It is no wonder then that van Eenwyk postulates that indeed, archetypes are the strange attractors of the psyche. 

A Study of Symbols

Van Eenwyk (1997) explores the dynamics of symbols in depth.  He could explore other dynamics, as anything that the psyche produces reflects its dynamics (p. 109), but symbols are a good choice because they are very complex and have their feet in both worlds, consciousness and the unconscious, and mediate between them by participating in both (p. 111).  Symbols are liminal, occurring between individual and environment.  They are “interfaces not only “between synchronic and diachronic dynamics, but between psychic structure and personal experience, between past and present, order and chaos” (pp. 88-89).  Since symbols are produced by the psyche, their dynamics will reflect the dynamics of the psyche; because we cannot observe archetypes directly, we observe symbols.  The same is true of strange attractors, as Stewart (2002) notes: we cannot observe them directly, only their observables.  Van Eenwyk tells us that symbols are transformers, they “transform the process of perception” (p. 102), helping the psyche to “form itself by drawing it to perspectives and experiences that promote growth” (p. 85).  As they transcend categories, symbols take us to places that are difficult to define.  They are “stargates that point beyond themselves” (pp 70-71) and have compelling influence on us as “they mobilize our psychic energy” (p. 90), and thus they lead us through life, and as Jung believed, symbols give us access to and expose us to what is absent in our lives, which is not easy because it “involves a descent into the unconscious, a ‘dark night of the soul’ on the course of the ‘hero’s journey’. In short it is an encounter with the shadow” (p. 85).  Van Eenwyk elaborates: “When the ego gains access to the unconscious through symbols, the unconscious gains access to the ego.  Thus begins the process of fragmentation, dismemberment, and chaos” (p. 115). Again, we hear in Van Eenwyk's description four familiar cosmic play, death-rebirth pattern.

Correspondences with Chaos Theory

Van Eenwyk (1997) maintains that by understanding chaos theory, we can see how symbols do what they do.  He then goes on to give the mandala as an example, because mandalas occur in every culture and are a description of how things are, of life itself.  Van Eenwyk notes that Jung describes mandalas as characterized by a “phenomenology that is always repeating and everywhere the same,” noting that this is a good description of self-similarity across scale.  Van Eenwyk also notes in Jung’s description that “It seems to be a sort of atomic nucleus about whose innermost structure and ultimate meaning we know nothing” which Van Eenwyk feels “suggest the presence of fractal dimension and SDIC," and he then poses the question “Could mandalas and fractal attractors be two versions of the same reality?”  Van Eenwyk also remarks that Jungian analyst C.A. Meier says mandalas are “ever vividly rotating, thus indicating the dynamics, the process, the character of the ever repeated night-sea-journey during the ‘dark night of the soul’” (pp. 110-111).  This harkens back to the previous discussion of fractal dimension where symbols are seen as snapshots of archetypal dynamics.

Van Eenwyk (1997) describes the process of archetypal dynamics as a dance or play of opposites as it were, between consciousness and the unconscious going back and forth, first one way and then back around the next. As we can see, this oscillation is an iterative process, and these synchronic dynamics are what fuel the psyche and lead to psychological growth.  Just as in chaos theory, where we get new patterns emerging from chaos, so too with symbols, at some point something new springs from something old, which as Jung notes was the result of the underlying archetype.  Van Eenwyk convincingly demonstrates the usefulness of chaos theory in understanding Jung’s ideas.

While discussing the oscillating nature of the tension of opposites, Van Eenwyk (1997) observes that the oscillation between the new and old for quite some time before the new pattern is established is also sometimes known as suffering, and that the oscillations can create a cascade of bifurcations that lead to chaos. 

Jung was familiar with this phenomenon and considered it to be an integral part of the individuation process.  He cited precedents in alchemy, shamanism, and mystical experience, all of which contain references to fragmentation, dismemberment, even “the return to chaos.”  Furthermore we know that when a cascade continues to intensify, patterns that were once part of the original tension of opposites may again appear amid the chaos.  Jung described this aspect of psychodynamics as a descent into the chaos of the unconscious that could lead to increased psychological functioning. (p. 112)

End of section, continue to Reiteration of Eternal Return