Jung e a narrativa: mito individual e inconsciente coletivo
![Thumbnail](/bitstream/handle/ufscar/4819/1197.pdf.jpg?sequence=5&isAllowed=y)
Ver/
Fecha
2006-09-27Autor
Arantes, Ana Cláudia Yamashiro
Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemResumen
This work intends to offer a different reading of Carl Gustav Jung writings of the ones that conceive the terms
archetype and collective unconscious as explicit references to the transcendent domain, "spiritualistic" readings
that would do the Analytical Psychology methodology result in a dogmatic proceeding. In order to understand
the notion of "individual" that has place in the Jungian meta-psychology , it becomes important to understand
Jung's way to mean and to interpret the psychopathological facts and dreams that him observed in his clinical
experience. Every moment the analytical psychology threatens to relapse in an irrationalism if we restrict
ourselves in the denotative consideration of the language used to represent the psychic reality. We put emphasis,
in our reading, on the representative and symbolic use of the language of psychological communication that
intends to express the individual being, in order to investigate the question of the dogmatism that permeates
countless critical readings concerning Jung's work. After all, in which paradigm the Analytical Psychology
intends to sustain itself as a science? We will show that is the material-reductionism paradigm from the sciences
of the nature the responsible for guiding the comprehension of a (transcendent) origin of the collective
unconscious archetypes, but these are only enunciated by Jung in order to refer to the (figurative) appearance of
the dreamlike fantasies for the psychic (immanent) existence. The causal factor stops being predominant in the
interpretation of the archetype concept to give up place to the adaptation purpose of the psychic manifestation of
the image. The notion of normality is faced, and crosses the domains of the disease in which takes place the
eighty century medicine; if this natural paradigm becomes unable to guide the analytical psychology point of
view, that intends to be a science of the man, which new paradigm would be more appropriated in a reading of
Jung's work that do not intends to aim in a dogmatic interpretation - what would invalidate it's scientific
legitimacy? To understand the pretense connection of the Jungian work to the mystic's domain it is necessary to
understand the notion that the history of the philosophical thought checked to the term "dogmatism ". At last,
could the Analytical Psychology be understood as a Science, or does it approach more to the Art, that intends to
turn the part (finite) the representation of the essence of the "whole" (infinite)?