Oct 27, 2022
In General Discussions
I've attached three direct quotations from the main text of Wolfgang Giegerich's The Historical Emergence of the I. The first quotation situates Giegerich's thinking about psychedelics, i.e. mind-expanding "drugs" such as LSD, in relation to tribal society and community, while the second and third quotations reflect Giegerich's concept of the psychological difference in relation to transcendental subjectivity for the sake of elucidating Erleben or "experience". Interestingly, Scott J. Hill has written Confrontation with the Unconscious which illustrates both the coherent potency of a synthesis of analytical psychology with psychedelic science as well as the inherent riskiness of misadventure pursuing what Jung referred to as "the pure gifts of the Gods". Indeed, Jung was apparently very skeptical about psychedelics, forewarning explicitly: "You pay very dearly for them". I would like to suggest that Giegerich's notion of psychological difference reworks the inherent dilemma contouring the controversy of the hedonistic bait of "mind-expanding substances" and the sacredness of analytical psychology's worth as a psychology with Soul. Obviously, the occurrence of soul happening cannot be completely manipulated by technological innovations, yet, perhaps, the probability and profundity of the Badiouian notion of the Event i.e. a rupture of (philosophical or anti-psychological) non-being - analogous to what Giegerich has referred to in Coniunctio as an "outrageous transgression" or ingression - can be temporarily intensified and psychologically interiorized. Indeed, perhaps the clinical resolution of psychosis necessitates the ethically experimentative and the moral progressiveness of generative reflections on traditionality: the "Truth" of the political life "built" or developed, literally, on the "Right" of the moral life and the "Good" of the ethical life. After all, psychosis and the logic of a physical illness pertain to psychological psychology if the body itself is "conceived", literally, as inherently psychological, i.e. of Soul both phylogenetically and ontogenetically. In this case, the Non-Linearity of transcendental subjectivity permits a post-secular "Religare" - reverence, to bind - and the possibility of dialectically psychological regression for the sake of dependence i.e. "circling back" to regain autonomy i.e. experience the fulcrum of separation from Soul as it pertains, transpersonally, as an un-detachment with the mother to sever the umbilical cord, literally and post-metaphysically, and thereby resolving the double bind of an ostensibly physical illness at a speculative i.e. literal level of analysis. The psychological consciousness of love or the unity of unity and difference - ostensibly the non-duality of the mystics - is the purposiveness of a "noumenology of seele" and "the logic of art" - a descending pathway and an equivalently proficient method for realizing the religious "Idea" of monotheism via the many, i.e Giegerich: "It is, so to speak, a matter of taste whether one prefers the One Oustanding Object to a multitude of somewhat inferior but also valuable possessions" 61. Interestingly, and further, this difference - between the One and the Many - exists on the vertical dimension of emancipatory (Animus) and initiatory (Anima) experience, and, therefore, also concretely as a proclivity to preferentiality of approach across gendered lines. This appears immediately in Religious history in the biographies of eminent men and women i.e. Martin Luther, Priest, and Mother Theresa, Nun, in their respective approaches i.e. the emancipatory ascent of the historical emergence of the I and the initiatory descent of the "historical submergence" of the many i.e. ego or the psychological "myself" in the agape or psychological consciousness of love i.e. the lepers, or the lowlands of analytic work.