Scientists have formulated explanations for the origin of consciousness. The generally accepted scientific view is that "after billions of years of swirling around, matter and energy evolved to create life-formscomplex self-replicating patterns of matter and energythat became sufficiently advanced to reflect... on their own consciousness" (Ray Kurzweil, The Age Of Spiritual Machines, 1999, p. 62). When this had happened, according to this perspective, consciousness had evolved.
The Bible gives us God's vantage point. As our Creator, He is in a position to know. God made man in His "image," forming man from the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life; and man became "a living being" (Genesis 1:26
; 2:7).
Before God enlivened the first man, he was a lifeless creation. Afterward he was a living being, made in the image of God. God placed a unique consciousness in human beings. We can recognize beauty, make judgments and perform other mental tasks that are unique to humans.
Man is the only creature that puzzles over the reason for his existence. We are the only physical beings that demonstrably can ponder past, present and future. We did not evolve this ability; God created it. He is the author of human consciousness and intelligence.
As for man developing a source of artificial intelligence that can supply answers to our insoluble problems, his new knowledge tends to produce even more problems in approximate proportion to the amount of new information he discovers. If we are wise, we will look to God for answers through His revelation, the Bible.
Man cannot find lasting solutions to his problems because they are, at their core, spiritual in nature (Isaiah 59). Unless and until humanity as a whole is ready to recognize the true source of its problems, and seeks God's solutions, we will continue to face the dilemmas and difficulties that have plagued mankind for thousands of years.
The Bible shows us human problems will not be resolved until Jesus Christ returns. "Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, and he who believes in Him shall not be disappointed" (1 Peter 2:6, New American Standard Bible).
Jungian Models of the Psyche
Circle Models
Jung (1981) says that both conscious and unconscious experiences are relative and he speaks of a threshold of consciousness (p. 174) which separates the two. It is the relativity of the unconscious that temps us to label one area as a subconscious and another as a superconscious. Jung (1981) refers to this relativity as a "scale of intensities of consciousness (p. 187). But we cannot have total consciousness or total unconsciousness in that each always carries with it the germ of the other. In the same way, nature has no complex systems that are totally orderly or totally chaotic, but all dissipative structures have differing degrees of both. We can see this graphically in Figure 5, a simplified circle model of the psyche (adapted from Jacobi, 1973).
|
|
|
Figure 5. Simplified Circular Model of Jung's Psyche.
In this dynamic model, the ego is shown surrounded by the conscious and unconscious with a shifting line (a fractal) dividing the two areas. The arrows indicate the ability of the dividing line to move as we become aware of some unconscious contents, and forget or repress others. This model shows the psyche as a closed system with the ego looking outward toward consciousness and inward toward the unconscious. The model is especially useful to demonstrate the dynamics of the thin borderline interface that exists between consciousness and the unconscious.
According to Jung, (1990) the personal unconscious contains various complexes, while the collective unconscious contains archetypes and instincts. When we equate consciousness with order, and the unconscious with chaos, we can see from the model that our personal unconscious lies immediately between the two extremes. It is sandwiched between order and chaos, and therefore can be viewed as a region of complexity in which the relationships between order/ conscious and chaos/unconscious can best be seen. This is the realm of the imagination. Figure 7 shows a conical model of the psyche with the major parts of the psyche as portions of a cone (adapted from Jacobi, 1973). Here the ego is illustrated as the tip of a large cone whose base is the collective unconscious. The collective unconscious is divided into two main sections: (1) that part which can become conscious, and (2) that part which will never become conscious. Each section of the cone rises up from, and exists upon, the lower section. The ego can consciously perceive part of the collective unconscious. However, the model suggests that we can only view the collective unconscious through the filter of our own personal unconscious, and thus perceptions may vary.
Jung thinks that there is always part of our personality which is still unconscious, which is still becoming. We are unfinished; we are growing and changing. Our potentialities lie in the shadow-word of the dark side of our ego.
Jung thinks that there is always part of our personality which is still unconscious, which is still becoming. We are unfinished; we are growing and changing. Our potentialities lie in the shadow-word of the dark side of our ego. Jung speaks of two classes of the unconscious;
First the personal unconscious, or subconscious mind that is entirely made up from personal elements that constitute the personality as a whole.
Then there is the collective unconscious. The contents of this sphere cannot be ascribed to individual acquisition but rather to patterns peculiar to mankind in general. Jung calls these collective patterns archetypes. They contain mythological motifs.
In Jungs view the personal unconscious is something we can (and ultimately should?) become aware of. The collective unconscious however cannot be made conscious at all. Contents of it, images mostly, behave as if they do not exist in ourselves, we cannot integrate them in our own consciousness.
Jung explains the phenomenon of a collective unconscious by saying that our mind, just as our body, has its history. In that sense our mind has been built up in the course of millions of years and represents the history of mankind. This is why archaic images are embedded in our (collective) unconscious. The beauty of Jungs view is that these records are more or less available to man in the form of archetypes; in the collective unconscious.
|
|
|
The deepest layer we can reach in our exploration of the unconscious mind is the layer where man is no longer a distinct individual, says Jung. There our mind widens out and merges into the mind of mankind not the conscious mind, but the unconscious mind of mankind, where we are all the same. On this collective level we are no longer separate individuals, we are one.
Jung claims that this is because the basic structure of the mind is the same in everybody. Somehow it seems to me that he avoids to put to words the possibility that we share something which could be called a universal mind.
Jung mentions three methods of analysis to approach the dark sphere of man; the unconscious:
1. the word association test
2. dream-analysis and
3. the method of active imagination
Dream-analysis. Presumably we are dreaming all the time, but during the day we are not aware of it because consciousness is too clear. At night dreams can break through and become visible.
Jung reminds us that our consciousness is only a surface, the avant-garde of our psychological existence. He pictures our consciousness as a head, burdened by a body that can walk only on the earth (unlike angels who have winged heads), or as a head with a long saurians tail.
So Jung studies dreams to learn what the tail is doing; what a persons unconscious is doing with his complexes. In other words: what is this person preparing himself for, what (does he feel) is in store for him.
He is convinced that a dream does not conceal; we simply do not understand its language. The dream is its own interpretation, the whole thing. (Here of course he differs from Freud who thought that a dream was a distorted and therefore unrecognizable representation of a secret incompatible desire. Freud was looking for the complexes whereas Jung looks for what the unconscious is doing with them)
If the main substance of a dream is mythological, Jung speaks of a mythological dream, or big dream. These dreams contain a general, collective meaning and its dreamers have an instinctive tendency to tell them. History prepares itself, Jung says; when the archetypes are activated and come to the surface in a number of people, we are in the midst of history. Our personal psychology is just a thin skin, a ripple upon the ocean of collective psychology.
Jung warns his audience that it is not safe to interpret a dream without going into careful detail as to the context. As dreams are the reaction to our conscious attitude, the natural reaction of the self-regulating psychic system, they have a compensatory function: they are an indication, a symptom, that the individual is at variance with unconscious conditions, that somewhere he has deviated from his natural path. Jung says: my snake does not agree.
