Visions Seminar

LECTURE II                 22 October 1930

Dr. Jung: We were dealing with that first hypnogogic vision of the peacock last time, and you remember that was followed by another one: our patient was looking at a large hole in her shoe and thought it was so worn that she should not wear it any longer.

The meaning of this was not clear to her at the time, but it is very ordinary and simple symbolism.

For instance, people speak of putting away the shoes, or the clothes, of childhood to put on those that suit a more adult age.

Shoes are a particular form of clothing, an invention which protects the feet and enables us to move easily over rough ground, so they symbolize an adaptation to the hardships which we encounter on our way, an adaptation to the immediate factors of reality-how we are dealing with, or protecting ourselves against, that immediate contact with reality.

All forms of adaptation are psychical systems-I do not say psychological systems-of which we are ordinarily not at all conscious. For they are usually based upon inherited archetypal conditions, and when an archetype is functioning we are more or less unconscious.

Then the psychical guidance or leadership is taken out of our hands, and the archetype, a sort of autonomous content-an instinct, for instance-takes the lead.

That instinct, or archetype, is then producing something of which we are quite unaware or only to a certain extent aware; the ordinary adaptations are brought about by mere instinctive functioning of which we are but partially conscious.

That fact leads sometimes to certain symptoms, namely, when an attitude or a system of adaptation becomes overdue, as it were, when it should have· been dissolved long ago and yet lingers on, we cling to it without knowing to what we are clinging, and then we simply lose our adaptation to present circumstances.

We are still going on in the same old way, not knowing that we should change, because we are unconscious of the way we adapt.

If we only knew, we could give it up, but we cannot give up a thing of which we do not know.

So we adapt to things as we always did, yet the circumstances are completely changed and our system of adaptation no longer fits.

Such a condition is expressed in this symbolism.

One could say that the patient’s standpoint was worn out and should be replaced by a new one.

Now we come to the next dream.

Things are now beginning to move.

When an old attitude is worn out, the unconscious, inasmuch as it has developed to that point, can bring in something new.

Otherwise one would not have such a vision.

I am in a bedroom. A woman enters through the window and says, “This building is on fire, did you not know it?”

I say, “No, all is quiet in my room.” That is the first part of the dream.

Then after a sort of hiatus, a pause, such as often happens in dreams, a new picture begins.

Here our patient is in a bedroom, she is probably asleep in bed, for she is quite unaware of the situation and suddenly becomes alarmed because a woman’s figure is entering through the window.

Now, if the bedroom is on the second story, what might that figure be?

Mrs. Sigg: Something that has been outside of her personality comes in.

Dr. Jung: Yes, but that is not quite dealing with my question, that is interpretation.

I want you to think of dreams in a very naive way.

To know what such a picture means, put yourself into such a situation.

Mrs. Jaeger: Something unusual and dangerous comes in and shocks her, as the usual way is to enter by the door.

Mrs. Wickes: It is magic.

Dr. Jung: It depends-there might be another hypothesis. If the door was locked, who would enter by the window?

Answer: Thieves.

Dr. Jung: Of course, a cat burglar.

There might be a woman of that profession, I don’t know, but at all events it is rather terrifying when somebody enters through the window while one is asleep.

We must not be blinded by the very concise text.

She simply made a record for my use, without bothering to put in emotional details, assuming that I was aware of the emotional values, so we must supply that part of the picture.But let us assume that the patient does not realize any particular emotion-she apparently takes it very coolly.

As you know, extraordinary things happen in dreams without astonishing you in the least; having only partial consciousness, you have not the power to react.

In the case of schizophrenia or dementia praecox, such a fragmentary consciousness system of adaptation no longer fits. There might be a woman of that profession, I don’t know, but at all events it is rather terrifying when somebody enters through the window while one is asleep. We must not be blinded by the very concise text.

She simply made a record for my use, without bothering to put in emotional details, assuming that I was aware of the emotional values, so we must supply that part of the picture.

But let us assume that the patient does not realize any particular emotion-she apparently takes it very coolly.

As you know, extraordinary things happen in dreams without astonishing you in the least; having only partial consciousness, you have not the power to react.

In the case of schizophrenia or dementia praecox, such a fragmentary consciousness can reply, but it cannot react properly because of the lack of full realization.

So when people show a fragmentary reaction to things, one asks oneself whether it is a complex or dementia praecox which accounts for that peculiar distortion in the reaction.

Whether the patient realizes the emotion in the dream is not sure, but she would quite certainly realize it in reality, as anybody would.

She might think it was a murderer or a thief-or something else. Nowadays, even that is possible.  What would that be?

Mrs. Crowley: A ghost!

Dr. Jung: Yes, if she were a spiritualist or a theosophist or a primitive, it would be a ghost.

Now since the thing is not real, all these associations merely serve the purpose of establishing the emotional value of the fact.

Whatever it is, whether a thief or a ghost, it is at all events alarming, and apparently it is quite aware of the fact of which the dreamer is not aware, that the house has been on fire for some time.

This again is alarming, but apparently the dreamer again takes it rather quietly and says that in her room everything is quiet, as if that were an argument against the rest of the house being on fire.

She obviously has not realized the situation, so the unconscious points it out to her.

It is only about a month and a half since the beginning of the analysis, and we are just at the moment when obviously something new is beginning.

The old shoes are worn out and here the new thing enters.

Naturally the question of what the new thing may be is important to me as well as to my patient, and the dream gives the startling news that the house is on fire.

Now what does that mean?

Mrs. Wickes: It means the destruction of her security.

Dr. Jung: And what about the fire?

Mrs. Wickes: Fire is the new danger that threatens the old values.

Dr.Jung: Or it might be an earthquake. Well, you say the house means security. Is there any other idea?

Prof Eaton: The house is a system of adaptation like the shoes.

Dr. Jung: Yes, only on a much larger scale.

The shoes are a protection against the dangers and risks of the ground on which one stands, while the house has a far more protective value: it is a sort of additional skin, a rain-cloak or something of the sort.

It would have been a tent in the past, a protection from the cold wind and the rain, etc., and on a higher level, a protection against dangerous animals and enemies of all sorts.

So surely the house is a symbol of a most complete system of adaptation.

Therefore it generally means our whole situation in life, including our attitude of mind or consciousness.

And we must also include the unconscious because a house has a cellar, as well as a roof where the birds perch.

The roof would mean the top of the skull, and the birds which land on the top of the house would mean the external intuitions which are supposed to live up there.

For example, the first symptom in another patient, a sensation type, which led me to believe that her intuition was on the way, was that she felt a softening in the region of the fontanelle, as if a third eye were developing there, and in her next fantasy, a bird was alighting on her head and trying to enter through the new eye.

Intuition has the peculiar quality of seeming somewhat outside of one.

That is because intuition gives one information about things which one cannot properly see or hear.

There is something peculiarly illegitimate about intuition and therefore it is usually symbolized by birds, who have seen something in the air perhaps and whispered it in one’s ear.

Then the house is often likened to the body in poetical language, the windows being the eyes, and in this case it probably has that meaning.

Not only her shoes are outworn, but her whole mental system-one could say, her conscious system of adaptation-is threatened by destruction, and here it is evidently destruction by fire.

I just said that it might be destroyed by an earthquake just as well, but it must be something specific.

It is always advisable to enter into the detail of the symbolism; it is by no means indifferent what symbol the dream

chooses.

In this respect I take a different standpoint from the Freudian school to whom the particular character of the symbolism is absolutely indifferent; ten thousand things can mean the same thing-the genitals, say.

But I insist that what the dream actually says is all-important, rather than the interpretation which we put into it.

We might go astray with our interpretation, but the dream is a natural fruit, a product of nature, and we have not organized or produced it.

It is like a strange bird. We may say such a bird should not be.

We may behave like the farmer from the Middle West who, when he saw for the first time that strange Australian bird in the Zoo in New York, scratched his head for a long time and said: “But there ain’t no such bird!”

But that is surely not a scientific attitude. We must take the dream for what it is.

We must not assume that one thing is merely a symbol for something else, as if we controlled the sources of the dream.

We must be grateful if we discover the sources of the dream, but we have absolutely no control over them.

Dr. Schlegel: Is it true that a patient chooses the symbolism in the dream from experiences which he has had in reality?

If she had experienced an earthquake, would the dream in that case choose an earthquake?

Dr. Jung: Yes, provided that the earthquake or the fire is the apt symbol to express what actually is meant.

For instance, I have experienced fire, earthquake, floods, and bombardment, so if my unconscious wanted to demonstrate the insufficiency of a certain general attitude of mine, it would have a choice.

But if an earthquake had destroyed someone’s house and the unconscious chose a flood instead, I would know that it was a very specific danger and not only a question of destruction.

A house might tumble down as the result of fire or of earthquake, and the earthquake would convey the idea of destruction just as much as the fire. So to know the real nature of the danger that besets me, I mustknow the specific destructive agent.

Dr. Schlegel: But if you had only one experience in real life, and that one of fire, would the dream then choose fire?

Dr. Jung: Not necessarily. We know that we can dream of all those things even if we have never experienced them.

One dreams of amazing animals, for instance, tremendous serpents that one has never seen, horrible monsters that do not exist.

One has all the fright and emotion of seeing a real dragon when surely one never saw a dragon.

I remember dreams of Swiss patients, who were never in the war and had never seen a bombardment from the air, yet they dreamt about bombs falling and killing people.

They had read vivid descriptions and seen photographs in the illustrated papers, so naturally they could use that material.

I never dreamt of Africa when I was there.

A nigger once appeared in my dreams and I thought, now at last Africa has gotten under my skin, but then it dawned upon me that that nigger was my barber in Chattanooga in the United States.

People in the most amazing situations dream the most obvious banalities, with not a trace of all the powerful things they have lived through during the day; and people who are living very simple normal lives may have dreams which are full of horrors.

So we can establish from all this that the unconscious is quite independent and has the most amazing faculty for picking its own material.

There is absolutely no rule.

The only rule is that extraordinary independence of anything to do with the conscious.

You may be certain that you have no possible chance to influence the unconscious from the conscious.

If the unconscious chooses to say something else, it will most certainly do so despite all your efforts.

If you should succeed in dreaming a certain thing that you have suggested to yourself, I should say it was because it

fitted the unconscious intention, that there was really something behind it.

Suppose you decide, as an experiment, that just before going to sleep you will concentrate upon a certain image that is to appear in your dream.

Then you come to the conclusion that it shall be the idea of fire; you have the expectation and will that fire shall appear in the dream, and it does appear, and you think, ah, now we have it!

But you do not ask how you came to choose that particular symbol in the daytime.

You know how sometimes when you are talking a certain word leaps up and inserts itself into your sentence, or you forget a name already on your lips.

From these disturbances you could almost reconstruct the dream that is going on all the time in your unconscious.

The minute you are alone, you instantly sink down into that fabric of dreams which meets the surface of it.

If you have an abaissement moral, so that the clear light of consciousness is lowered and there is a sort of twilight, you find yourself in that stratum in yourself where you are in the immediate neighborhood of dreams.

Or when you are very tired, it often happens that your perception of reality becomes dreamlike.

For example, it happened to me in a strange town in the Middle West that I forgot the name of the town I was in.

It was very awkward.

Those towns in America are very much alike, and I was going to a new one every day.

It was late in the evening, I was terribly tired, and suddenly I had completely forgotten which town it was.

I thought I was in the hotel of a former town.

And when one is so tired as to be nearly unconscious, it often happens that autonomous phenomena come up-you see people that don’t exist, you hear voices, you hear your name called perhaps, all of which simply means that you are in the vicinity of dreams where your whole psychical life begins to be objectified.

Now that also happens in your experiments, so when you choose a symbol you never know whether your unconscious has not chosen it for you.

You may have chosen fire, but you are never sure that the unconscious will not say water.

And if the dream repeats fire, the only safe

conclusion that I know of is to assume that the dream has also chosen it.

My respect for dreams goes very far, and I am impressed again and again by the extraordinary independence of the unconscious, the most extraordinary mental independence that I know.

The independence of the conscious is ridiculous in comparison.

You know that any conscious matter is derived from such and such a source, that you read it in the newspaper for instance.

But when it comes to the unconscious, you are safe only when you assume that to be a genuine production.

It grows out of the soil like a plant, and you cannot say the plant appears only because a certain poet made a poem about such a plant growing in such a place.

The poet had nothing to do with the existence of the plant-any kind of wind blew the seed there, and so it is with dreams.

Dreams and visions are products of nature, and they are most amazingly uninfluenced, even if it looks quite otherwise.

I insist on that point, because Freud’s point of view is just the contrary.

He thinks that the unconscious is tremendously influenced and that certain dreams come entirely from some conscious fact in the life of the dreamer.

But if you see a street accident, perhaps a most horrible and impressive scene, I am sure you will not dream about it.

Or if you do, it will be distorted, so it is most certainly not a mere accident, but a symbol that expresses some psychological problem in yourself, the real accident having been used only as a sort of language, a means of communication.

As if, in order to explain something to you, I could do it best by using an illustration, say two automobiles crashing together.

If I had just come from such a sight, it would be most natural to use that as a parallel or a symbol, it might recommend itself.

But I could also use it if I had not seen the street accident.

And so the unconscious can use it if it suits its purpose or not at all if it is not symbolic.

Therefore I have little confidence in the theory that impressions of the day are repeated.

I have too  often seen cases when people had received a tremendous impression and I knew they were drawing a certain conclusion, but the next dream would be of the old aunts and cousins just as before; it had made no impression whatever.

People say: “Now I see it! Now I realize it!”

Then the next reaction is quite the contrary, just the other way around.

So I see that the unconscious is not yet touched, the reactions of the unconscious are as if nothing whatever had happened.

The great importance of dreams, and the reason why we have to analyze them, is to see where we are in our unconscious.

We can be God knows where in our conscious, on top of Mount Everest in our intuition, and in our unconscious not even out of the cradle.

Dr. Baynes: You would agree, would you not, that the character of the dreams is dependent upon the general intensity of the attitude?

Their character after analysis is different from before analysis, so would not the change of the conscious standpoint be a determining factor?

Dr. Jung: My point is the insistence upon the fact that no matter what your conscious attitude may be, the unconscious has an absolutely free hand and can do what it pleases.

It naturally changes if large parts of the unconscious are assimilated.

It is true that usually before analysis patients · have perfectly nice and presentable ordinary dreams, but no sooner is their analysis underway than the whole thing is smashed up and they have terrible dreams, all the beauty gone.

That comes from the fact that they are dissociated when they come, disoriented in every way.

Then, from the first lesson, a sort of order begins to grow in their conscious chaos, they see a line; and then instantly the chaos is in the unconscious.

I have compared my own later dreams with those I had in the beginning, and it is as if they had degenerated, they are so fragmentary.

And I see that again and again in people who have done a great deal of analytical work.

They cease to have dreams or they can hardly be remembered, and if remembered they are not very impressive, because all the energy that was in the unconscious is now in the conscious.

Now the information in this dream is that the house is on fire, meaning that the attitude or system of adaptation which this woman has had hitherto is threatened with destruction, and she slowly begins to realize it.

She is too much shut up in her conscious; she says that in her room everything is quiet, as if that were an argument against the fire.

Such an answer is typical of people who live only a secluded life up in the attic, in the intellect.

She is an exceedingly intellectual and highly educated woman, but she is not aware of other things in her house, she is too much separated from the unconscious.

Because no fire alarm has penetrated the upper room, she assumes that all is quiet below.

Yet in other parts of her psychology a revolution may have started.

Now fire is not an inundation nor an earthquake, it is just fire. What would you say about that?

Mrs. Sigg: It is a chemical process.

Dr. Schlegel: It is an oxidation process.

Dr. Jung: Yes, the cellulose of the wood, containing very little oxygen, assimilates oxygen with such rapidity that the whole thing flares up.

I should assume that the patient would know of this chemical aspect, but I think that is a bit too scientific, because she is dreaming out of primitive impressions.

The fire is as if breaking out of the material itself.

It was an old belief that in everything there was a hidden substance of warmth which might break out under certain conditions; the theory was that if touched with a match, the hidden combustible material in the substance

was irritated or enflamed, and out it came, bursting forth like a sort of spirit that had been lying dormant.

A god was lying dormant in the wood and was brought into existence by the fire.

That primitive idea is the essence of the fire symbol.

One sees what fire meant to primitive man from the Eastern texts on Agni worship in India.

Fire was personified as the god Agni. Agnis is the Sanskrit word, and in Latin it is ignis.

So from this symbolism we see that this form of destruction comes from the fact that in the very structure of her house, in the skeleton or framework that supports the house, there is a latent possibility of an outburst.

The Hindu texts are full of that beautiful leaping forth of the fire demon.

You may have noticed just now that, in speaking of the fire, I quite naturally used the same gesture that I used when I spoke of the peacock; the beautiful god leaping forth from his dormant condition gives one exactly the same feeling as the color and beauty of the unfolding feathers of the peacock.

Now we must discover what touched the substance that has brought the fiery god up to the waking condition.

The dream before tells us of the alarm, of someone who called her out of her sleep.

But the fire had already broken out, so we must go back a bit further to find the moment when it was kindled.

Wood must be touched by something fiery and hot for Agni to leap forth.

Mrs. Wickes: Wasn’t it the instinctual awakening of love?

Dr: Jung: That was the conscious situation, of course, but we must have the unconscious connection.

We might say that this fire was her passion, but that was there long ago. This refers to something else.

Although it will be most bewildering to you, I must tell you now that these events which take place in the unconscious do not concern the conscious ego.

They take place on a different level from the level of our consciousness.

You are a different man in the attic from the man you are in the cellar, and an experience in the attic is different from an experience down in the cellar.

So whatever happens in certain layers of the unconscious happens to a person with whom you are only partially connected.

Of course, this is all metaphorical, we can only speak in symbols, but I mention this now and then later on we shall talk again of that whole problem.

The primitives know about these psychological conditions-the most primitive Negroes, paleolithic people really, who have not yet discovered clothes.

And when they celebrate their ceremonials, say their totem ceremonial, they do not celebrate them as if they were themselves; they must first identify or exalt themselves to the condition of their ancestors.

You know, the old families of Athens traced their origin back to the Homeric heroes, and then those heroes had their immediate ancestry in the half-gods, like Perseus, for instance.

So the descent went in the following way: First the gods like Zeus, Ares, etc.; then semidivine heroes; then the Homeric age when the heroes were like Achilles, mortal, but very fine people, exceedingly strong and marvelous-not like Heracles, who drank the immortal milk of Hera but belonged to a lower stratum; and then came ordinary mortals, people like ourselves.

(First, god, or totem animal. Second, heroes-semidivine. Third, Homeric age. Fourth, ordinary mortals.)

Now those gods on the highest level may be animals; with primitives it is usually the totem animal of the tribe, like the snake or the bird.

And those people do not celebrate their rites in the ordinary way as we would assume; they do not take their top hats and long black coats and march themselves and their families to church to spend an hour and then come home, still ordinary men, knowing quite well that they are not in any way divine.

The primitives before their ceremonials identify with their ancestors of the Alcheringa time,s which exactly corresponds to the Homeric stage.

Then behind that is the totem animal, the kangaroo for instance, who brings forth man, but man of his own kind; the kangaroo brings forth the kangaroo-man, who knows that his father has been a kangaroo, that he was in the pouch of the kangaroo; and these are the ancestors of the ordinary man.

So the ordinary man identifies with the ancestors in order to lift himself up to the level where he remembers that his father was not Mr. Smith, but a kangaroo.

You see, in this condition he is, of course, of an unusual and higher nature; he is beyond time, as it were, and he experiences the ritual on that upper level.

Afterwards he is an ordinary man again, but he has benefited, he has gotten something out of it, some of the life of that kangaroo-man who has drawn it directly from the magic totem animal.

But the ordinary man cannot approach the totem animal directly; he must go by the bridge of the Homeric heroes, the kangaroo-men.

That is a particularly clear case to illustrate that the connection with the unconscious, the kangaroo, cannot be established directly, by will, or by a reasonable rational attitude.

It demands a very peculiar condition, namely, that one experiences it as if one did not experience it.

They themselves are in no connection with the kangaroo except as they transform themselves into the heroes; as such, they have the connection, but in that condition only, they must exalt themselves to that condition to experience it.

There is something similar in this dream. In the conscious, there is no danger, everything is quiet, a false alarm.

And that is true; provided this woman is able to live on in her attic, there is no fire.

The question is, can she stick it out? Can she remain quiet?

For if the alarm reaches her, there will be a change, things will happen which really do not belong to her conscious personality, but to the deeper layers of her unconscious.

That is a metaphor, one might say the higher layers just as well.

It all depends upon whether you think of it as below your feet or above your head; it is paradoxical-as above, so below.

The unconscious has the two aspects so one cannot help being paradoxical.

You see, inasmuch as we are connected with, or a part of, the unconscious, we are, as I say, different people in the different layers of the unconscious, and what we experience on another layer does not properly belong to what we live here.

It is of a different order, and it is impossible to experience it as long as one is only on this level.

I don’t know whether I make myself clear, but I must give you an impression, for certain things happen later on which you would not understand otherwise, things happen which are really taking place on a different plane.

You live a different life from the one you live here. It does not interfere in the least; you even benefit from it.

You are just what you are, and then you suddenly dive into another sphere and are the kangaroo’s son.

Now the fire is not only a beautiful manifestation of light and color, it is also a destructive and disintegrating process; it dissolves structures into smoke and ashes.

So it is a symbol which expresses on the one side utter destruction, a complete upheaval and disintegration, and on the other side a marvelous display of color and light; and on the primitive level, also the apparition of the divine.

Therefore fire has played a tremendous role in all religious rituals. It was man’s greatest discovery and therefore sacred from time immemorial.

The next part of the dream is entirely different.

Instead of that shadow woman who appeared through the window, somebody else appears on the scene, a Swiss boy who comes to teach her to play the accordion.

(We have many fine players in this country, especially among the people who live in the mountains.)

I kept a Swiss boy waiting a long time whilst I was dressing, and I was not quite dressed when I went into the next room where he was waiting.

I say, “Now I will play the tune which I have learned.”

The boy says, “No, you have kept me waiting so long that now you will learn what I have to teach.”

This is one of those scenes that belong already to that layer of her unconscious from which her visions later on will start.

In this dream, however, there is nothing that would allow us to divine what is coming.

It is a very modest beginning, symbolized by music lessons.

As you know, anybody with a differentiated intellect has to pay for such an accomplishment, usually by inferior feeling; as people with a very refined, differentiated feeling function pay for the lack of development of the mind.

People ask why feeling should exclude thinking and thinking exclude feeling. Of course we should all be angels and have golden wings, it would be much nicer.

Mrs. Norris: Is it not as if a plant came up?

Dr. Jung: That is an unfortunate example because a plant is wise enough to develop leaves on both sides, but we are in the unhappy position of developing only one side; we cannot develop everything at the same time.

This differentiation of a function is one of the miracles of culture.

Consciousness says: “This is very useful, now use your clever mind and you will have power.”

That is true; the deeper the differentiated function goes, the more you use it, and the more it works and brings success.

But then the less you consider the opposite function-in this case feeling-so we are not like plants exactly in that respect.

Only when we are unconscious are we like plants, or like very primitive man, or like children, who have practically no consciousness or only the very objective consciousness that is identical with whatever happens; then all the functions operate, but all in a quite unconscious way.

Our actual willful consciousness, which claims to have free will, is a very disturbing factor; it can choose, it can build up what it finds useful.

The primitive has a nature-like naivete inasmuch as it is not distorted by consciousness.

As soon as there is consciousness there is the possibility of choice, and that is the beginning of differentiation with the resultant one-sidedness.

Once such one-sidedness of development reaches a certain culmination, however, there comes a break; then comes a sort of collapse, what you call in America a breakdown.

The differentiated function collapses because the opposite function was wanted and could not be produced,

either in an extraverted situation or a situation within.

If one studies the history of such a collapse, one usually finds that the situation has evolved in the previous years, when things had become so entangled that only the inferior function could have dealt with the situation-if it had not been too inferior.

People often think that inferior feeling means that it is weak in intensity, which is by no means true; it is terribly strong, but primitive, barbarous, animal-like, and almost impossible to control.

It controls you. Whenever a situation demands the inferior function, you are in for trouble.

This woman collapsed, she came to an end with her brain-box, and her feeling said only awkward unacceptable things, which she did not like to hear because they were too evil, too foolish; so she had to reject the feeling since she could not apply it.

There was no question of applying it really, because the feeling would not obey her.

Like the story of the old soldier, which I have told you before:6 in the ‘6os or ’70s a colonel was in command of an army of three old veterans to defend against the enemy.

He placed his invalides at different corners and he was in the middle, being his own general staff.

Then he heard the voice of one of the veterans: “Mr. Colonel, I have made a prisoner!” “Bring him here!”

And the veteran shouted back: “He won’t let me, sir.!” That is the inferior function. The assumption is: now I shall use my feeling.

Touch it, and the feeling uses you. It cannot be used, it is too hot.

So you drop it, you withdraw, and then you are at a complete standstill and nothing moves; you are on the side of the mind again, completely dry, sterile.

Again you have to take up the feeling, and there is the whole problem.

That was the problem of the patient when she came to me, and it is quite logical that after a while the unconscious should suggest music lessons.

It is like the story of Socrates and his flute which I told you last time.

And now the Swiss boy comes to teach her music, the art of feeling; but it would not be a very exalted type of music, it is a peasant type, by no means classical.

It would be sufficient, however, if she could possess only that much, quite a primitive way of expressing herself, for she is absolutely inarticulate.

Now I wonder how you would interpret that Swiss boy.

Oh, don’t laugh. I know what you think but you are all wrong.

Mrs. Jaeger;· It is her new mind in Switzerland.

Dr. Jung: You are quite right.

The orthodox explanation would be that it was myself under a disguise, but I have already explained to you that I would be a great fool to accept such an interpretation.

I might get sugar in this case, but I would surely get pepper in another.

Prof. Eaton: It is a new attitude, is it not?

Dr. Jung: It is a new animus, but that is not an attitude, it is a function.

The boy is a figure in herself.

The best way technically is to handle it as it is presented by the dream.

The dream says a Swiss boy, a more or less unimportant figure, she doesn’t even know how he looks, he is just any

youngish Swiss man.

It would be a great mistake to say that figure was myself, for we would then be forced to the conclusion that her unconscious was belittling me, which would mean that she was overvaluing me in the conscious.

Such things happen, but then the dream would probably say: Dr. Jung is behaving very foolishly in trying to teach you the accordion, for as a matter of fact he doesn’t know how to play the accordion himself.

The unconscious is quite free to use my name or my personality, it is quite free to dream of myself or anybody else.

So that Swiss boy is a subjective figure that has been created in her recently, since she has never been to Switzerland before nor known any Swiss people.

Therefore we are quite safe in assuming that this figure originated just now, that it is a specific Swiss creation.

Now, what has been created in her in Switzerland?

Answer: That she learned to think in a new way.

Dr: Jung: Learning to think analytically is the impressive thing to her, so the Swiss boy is a personification of that kind of thinking.

But it is not quite that: it is opinionating, having views which are expressed by the figure of a man.

For a man, being characterized by Logos, is also the symbol for the spirit in a woman.

Now the spirit is not necessarily moral; it can be a lofty spirit or a low one.

It does not express any moral quality or any particular achievement.

It is only the figure of a man, which represents spirit to woman, as the figure of a woman represents Eros or relatedness to a man-which is of course an entirely different consideration.

So that Swiss boy is a sort of mental visioning, a system of views, a kind of thinking, that originated in Switzerland and that advises music.

As the dream expresses itself, one could say the analytical procedure hitherto has yielded the result that it would be advisable to pay more attention to her feeling.

That is all, and by that interpretation I leave the honor to her own function. I leave it to her merit.

I do not reduce her function to my merit so that she entirely forgets that she has a function of her own, because by such a procedure I would teach her to make projections.

People already project enough.

I am scared of too many projections.

The dream thus far says, then, that the result of her own thinking process is that she should learn to play the accordion.

Now she keeps the Swiss boy waiting.

This means that it is a long time before she can make up her mind to accept the fact that she should function with her feeling.

She is afraid of it but she does not realize that she is scared.

The inferior function is always in a state of unconsciousness or repression, so we are never able to realize its power to the full or what it really means.

So it takes her a long time to get dressed, and she has not finished even when she enters the room, which means that her attitude is not yet what it ought to be, not quite adapted to that undertaking.

This is quite evident because she enters saying: “I will play the tune that I have learned.”

She touches feeling with that attitude-I will show you what I want-forgetting entirely that when she touches feeling, she does what it wants.

You remember, the boy says she is to do what he wants.

That is the inferior function.

She can say: I will sit down and think over a certain matter, and behold the miracle! -she can produce thought.

But she has the same attitude to her feeling, and then either nothing happens, or something takes her by the hand and puts her into a pot of boiling oil.

So here she approaches the feeling problem represented by the music teacher with that attitude: I can do it, and then the boy says no.

He takes the lead instantly, which shows that this Swiss boy is the kind of thought or spirit-the word spirit is apt here-which is by no means under her control, to play with it or to put it in her pocket.

It is a living factor in her psychology that takes the lead.

Now, we don’t know whether this factor has always had the leadership or control of her, or whether it is just at this moment, or whether it will be forever.

We only know that for the time being something is going to take her hand-to force her hand. She has to obey something within herself.

It doesn’t matter whether you call it an idea or a fantasy, the result is the same: her hand is led.

The problem now begins to work by itself, spontaneously.

She can run away yet it will reach her from within.

For the fire is kindled and the process of disintegration is on the way.

The next dream came the next night.

All that I am telling you here happened practically within a week. I was in a boat with some man.

He said, “We must go to the very end of the lake where the four valleys converge, where they bring down the flocks of sheep to the water.”

When we got there, he found a lame sheep in the flock, and I found a little lamb that was pregnant.

It surprised me because it seemed too young to be pregnant.

We tenderly took those two sheep in our arms and carried them to the boat. I kept wrapping them up.

The man said, “they may die, they are shivering so.” So I wrapped them up once more.

This dream has an entirely new character.

She is already on the move,

she is in a boat with an unknown man.

The situation in the dream refers probably to the lake of Zurich, as the boy is Swiss, so it would be the actual situation here.

And that unknown man with her is the music teacher; it is the same function, but this time he shows a new quality.

He is now the man who sails the boat, the man at the tiller who takes the lead and says they must go to the end of the lake.

It is a higher necessity; a must. And now comes something most amazing.

The dream says, “where the four valleys converge.”

This is quite mythological.

Also, traveling with an unknown man in a boat has a mythological connotation.

That one is in the same boat with someone means that it is an enterprise in which both are involved.

We know that the man is the new spirit she has learned or created in Switzerland, and she now accepts his guidance and is taken along by him.

It is a sort of enterprise, an undertaking, and it must be done thoroughly, to the very end.

What mythological parallel does that suggest?

Mrs. Norris: The Quest of the Golden Fleece.

Dr. Jung: Yes, the Argonauts, though I am afraid there is no Golden Fleece among those sheep.

The Argonauts took an exceedingly psychological trip, but the motif of the night sea journey would cover that.

A lake or any sheet of water, even stagnant water, symbolizes the unconscious.

That is because, when you try to look into the unconscious, you see only your ego, nothing else, because it is dark underneath and light above.

Yet you know thousands of things are there.

Monsters are down there in that eternal night.

The whole world, the world of our ancestors, even the world of our childhood, is somewhere in those dark depths like Atlantis-though we see nothing but our own image reflected in the shining surface.

Now this trip to the end of the lake is more than an amusing excursion,

it takes you to the very end, and there you would expect to find something definite, something new.

That is symbolized by the four valleys that converge. And the flocks of sheep coming down to drink the water of life is almost a biblical image. It does not exist in reality.

At least, I cannot remember a place where four valleys converge, nor had the patient any memory of such a place.

Mrs. Norris: It is the four functions.

Dr. Jung: That is a bit too artificial here.

You must not forget that this was the dream of a person who knew nothing about the functions.

But it immediately suggests the four directions in space. In the Indian Pueblos,

for instance, one hears of the four cardinal points of the horizon; and the orientation of temples and churches is according to the four cardinal points.

Then this image is distinctive in that there is a dynamic element in it; it is not only a static figure: flocks of sheep are coming down from all the four corners to drink the water in the center.

Do you remember something similar?

Answer: When Jesus was born.

D1: Jung: There is a legend that when Jesus was born, instead of only three wise men, four were supposed to come from the four corners of the world, but the fourth did not come in time. Jesus is the source of life and his followers are the sheep, so one could say that this place where the four valleys converge was the source of the waters of life where people seek their salvation.

That is one analogy, and there is the reverse picture, where the waters of life flow out from the center in four rivers.

Mrs. Wickes: The Garden of Eden?

Dr. Jung: Yes, the four streams flowing out from Paradise.

Then there is another picture where flocks of humanity are streaming into a certain city.

Mrs. Wickes: The City of the Four Gates.

Dr. Jung: Yes, in Revelations, the Last Judgment, where all the peoples of the earth stream together like sheep, and there the sheep are separated from the goats.

The center is the heavenly Jerusalem where the Judgment is rendered.

You have seen such pictures in illustrated editions of the Bible-all coming to the Last Judgment.

And, you see, the unconscious contains such pictures.

You may say it is the influence of our Christian teaching, but people from all over the world who have no connection with Christianity have the same basic symbol in their unconscious.

You find it among the American Indians, in China, in India, everywhere the fourfold symbol. Even the Tetraktys of Pythagoras, where the four is a mystical principle, must refer to the same basic symbol of orientation.

Now the four cardinal points do not exist in reality, so it is an entirely man-made projection, the projection of an inner sense of orientation which consists of four points, and why that is so I do not know.

In the sixteenth century a Benedictine Father wrote three large volumes about non-Christian forms of the cross, and he had amazing material.

For instance, in the Mayan culture of Yucatan, crosses were found everywhere, and there were even signs of bloody sacrificial victims hanging on the crosses.

The Spanish conquerors didn’t know what to make of it and came to the conclusion that since Christ never went to Yucatan, the devil must have taught them to make mock crucifixes.

That was the old idea, which they must have taken over from Justinus, that old power of the church, in his attempt to account for the great resemblance between the Christian myth and the myth of Dionysus.

He said the devil knew-his intuition, I suppose-that God was going to send his only son to rescue man, and that it must be checked somehow.

So the devil went to Greece and told them all about it; he arranged that the myth of Dionysus should be made known, in order that, when Christ came, they could say: Oh, we have heard all that before!-which would of course deflate Christianity.

They used the same argument in Yucatan; the Mayan culture was completely destroyed, because it was supposed to be the work of the devil.

But of course their crosses were really the expression of an eternal truth, the four arms of the cross and the idea of the sacrifice in the center.

The sacrifice is not indicated here, there are only the converging four lines and the streaming together of the sheep, whatever that may mean.

Next time we shall speak of the fact that one sheep is lame, and a lamb is pregnant. ~Carl Jung, Visions Seminar, Page 20-37