Word count: 2905 Neoplatonism and Theurgy for the Future Bruce MacLennan Abstract I argue that a reformulated

Neoplatonism has much to offer to the modern worldview and that contemporary versions of theurgy are valuable psychological practices. Evolutionary psychology demonstrates that humans have innate behavioural adaptations, which have changed little in human history and form a constant context for cultural and social development. They remain unconscious until they are activated in particular situations and begin to affect conscious perception, motivation, and behaviour. These archetypal ideas or forms define the transpersonal structure of mind and correspond to the ideas charted by the phenomenological investigations of the Neoplatonists and of Jung. Indeed, Neoplatonism provides a comprehensive worldview that integrates the physical, psychical, and spiritual dimensions of existence. Finally, theurgical practices, based on the same principles as Jungian psychotherapy, promote psychological integration so people may live happier, more balanced and fulfilling lives. Introduction For many years it was fashionable to disparage Neoplatonism as the decadent descendant of the noble Platonic philosophy. Plotinus might be accorded respect as a mystic, but Iamblichus and Proclus were considered superstitious weavers of metaphysical knots. Indeed, modern scholars added the prefix Neo- to distinguish true Platonic philosophy from its supposedly bastard offspring. Fortunately, recent decades have seen a reevaluation of Neoplatonism, which recognizes its unique contributions to the Platonic tradition, contributions that are increasingly relevant to the modern worldview. In this paper I will discuss briefly Neoplatonisms articulation with evolutionary psychology, Jungian psychology, and contemporary science, and suggest some of its practical applications to mod-1-

ern life. (A brief presentation must suffice here; for more information please see my papers in the Bibliography.) Evolutionary Jungian psychology Before addressing Neoplatonism directly, it will be worthwhile to consider the connections between Jungian psychology and the rapidly developing field of evolutionary psychology (e.g., MacLennan, 2006a; Sabini, 2000; Stevens, 2003). Jung and some Jungian psychologists have explicitly identified the archetypes as the correspondents in the psyche of the instincts in behaviour, essentially the same phenomena viewed from the inside and the outside. They both structure perception, intention, and behaviour. Further, as has been extensively explored in Jungian literature, the archetypes correspond to the gods of the polytheistic pantheons; for example, the procreative instincts are seen as Aphrodite at work. Jung also emphasised that an archetype is not some kind of unconscious idea, but a contentless form capable of governing perception, intention, and behaviour to serve some biological end. Thus, the archetypes are unconscious, but when they are activated by some stimulus or situation, they begin their regulative activity, which affects the content of consciousness. Therefore, while an archetype cannot be known directly, it can be investigated by means of its manifestations in consciousness, which do not, however, exhaust the formal potential of the archetype. The archetypes are rooted in the human genome; that is, they are phylogenetic psychological structures. The connection of course is indirect; the genome, embodied in a DNA molecule, governs the morphogenesis of the embryo, which develops in interaction with the maternal environment and, after birth, with the external and social environments. In particular, the genome conditions the neurophysiological substrate of the archetypes. Jung noted that the lowest levels of the psyche correspond to physiological processes, and that these pass continuously into physical processes (see also Jung & Pauli, 1955). Indeed, like the laws of physics, the deepest (or highest) archetypes are mathematical, as the Pythagoreans also understood (von Franz, 1974). -2-

A very important archetype is the Self, which Jung describes as the centre of the psyche and totality of the archetypes (Jung, CW 12:44). It is easy to be misled by this term, because it may suggest the ego, personality, or some other limited aspect of the individual psyche. Rather, like the central sun, it includes all the archetypes in its gravitational field and governs their individual motions. Indeed, as the psychical correspondent of the genome, it can be characterized as the phylogenetic destiny of humankind (Stevens, 2003:84); as the totality of archetypal ideas, it constitutes transpersonal foresight or providence (). In the context of Jungian psychology, a complex is a network of interlinked ideas, images, feelings, compulsions, etc. that accumulate (according to the laws of similarity and contiguity) around an archetypal core as a result of repeated activation of that archetype in an individuals life (Stevens, 2003:74). Complexes are popularly viewed as pathological conditions, but in the present sense they are a regular part of the normal psyche, and serve to adapt the universal archetypes to the particularities of an individuals life. One of Jungs important observations was that complexes often behave as autonomous personalities (Jung, CW 8:253). When they are activated by a stimulus or situation, they manifest in characteristic patterns of behaviour, perception, intention, and conscious content. For these reasons and also because each complex is born from an archetype, which corresponds to a god, we will see that complexes correspond to the daimones () discussed in Middle Platonic and Neoplatonic texts. There are a number of important complexes possessed by all humans. Most familiar is the ego, or conscious self, which is that component of the psyche that we commonly experience and think of as our personal identity. However, as Jung emphasised, the ego is not the center or root of the psyche, but just one complex subservient to the unconscious Self. Another important complex is the superego, which comprises all of the personal, familial, and cultural norms, both conscious and unconscious, that we have learned (Stevens, 2003:253255). Finally, the shadow is a complex comprising all of those attitudes, feelings, behav-

-3-

iours, etc. that, consciously or unconsciously, we have rejected, but which still reside in our unconscious minds. Neoplatonism from an evolutionary Jungian perspective Jungs interests in alchemy and Gnosticism are well known, but less familiar is the influence of Neoplatonism on his thought. When he discovered Friedrich Creuzers Neoplatonic interpretations of mythology in Symbolik und Mythologie der alten Volker, Jung tells us that it fired him, and that he read like mad, and worked with feverish interest through a mountain of mythological material (Jung, 1965:162). (Creuzer, of course, later produced important editions of Plotinus, Proclus, and Olympiodorus.) Hillman remarks that the reason Jung was so fired by Creuzer was because he and Creuzer shared the same spirit, a profoundly similar psychological attitude, an archetypal attitude, which tradition calls Neoplatonist (Hillman, 1975a:149). When Jung settled on the term archetype, he mentioned as precedents the use of in Plotinus, Philo Judaeus, Irenaeus, pseudo-Dionysius, and the Corpus Hermeticum (Jung, CW 9i:5). He defined them as active living dispositions, ideas in the Platonic sense, that preform and continually influence our thoughts and feelings and actions (Jung, CW 8:154). Nevertheless, Jung did not justify the existence of the archetypes on the basis of Neoplatonism, or any other philosophical system, but justified them empirically, based on the phenomenological data of his analytical practice. Thus he arrived at conclusions similar to the Neoplatonists, deriving from their comparable contemplative and theurgical practices. Hillman further argues that the Renaissance Neoplatonist Marsilio Ficino was writing, not philosophy as has always been supposed, but an archetypal psychology (1975a:202). Moore (1990) is a detailed exploration of Ficinos book De vita coelitus comparanda from the perspective of archetypal psychology, and Neoplatonic thought pervades the archetypal psychology of Hillman (1996). The coincidence of Neoplatonism and Jungian psychology is not so surprising when we recall that ancient philosophy was not so much a system of thought as a way of life (Hadot, 1995, 2002). That is, the experiential aspects of philoso-4-

phical practice, and the consequent effects on the philosophers life, were the principal goals of the philosophy, the dogma being a means to this end. Especially in the Platonic tradition, in which the archetypal forms are central, the starting point was a phenomenological investigation of the structure of the forms, which might then be further developed, articulated, and explored by dialectic, and through the subsequent phenomenological investigations that they motivated. Further, as Kingsley (1995) has comprehensively documented, spiritual practices similar to Neoplatonic theurgy were a regular part of the Pythagorean tradition (to which Plato and later Platonists also belonged) from at least Pythagorass time up through George Gemistos Plethon and Ficino. These practices also entailed a phenomenological investigation of the archetypal realms. As we have seen, Jung saw a close connection between the archetypes and the Platonic forms; they are both unalterable, transpersonal structures in the realm of mind. They both correspond closely to the deities of the polytheistic pantheons, as discussed, for example in Procluss Elements of Theology and Sallustiuss On the Gods and the Universe. Thus we may call them the archetypal forms or archetypal ideas. Incidentally, this perspective suggests an approach to answering the perennial question of whether there are Platonic forms of undignified things, such as mud (Parm.:130c): the archetypal forms correspond to the innate psychological structures of our species. Furthermore, like the Pythagoreans, Jung and other Jungian psychologists have recognised that the most fundamental archetypes have a mathematical character (Card, 1996; Robertson, 1989; von Franz, 1974). In Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism daimones are the mediators between gods and the material world; though immaterial, they are active in the material world of time and space (e.g, Wallis, 1972). Among them are an individuals personal daimones ( ), who are especially concerned with a persons well-being and fate. Similarly, in Jungian psychology the complexes mediate between the transpersonal archetypes and an individual consciousness; they adapt the universal archetypal form to an individuals circumstances and biography. Significantly, both daimones and complexes may possess an individual; that is, when aroused by appropriate circumstances, they can distort a persons percep-5-

tions, psychological states, motivations, and actions (von Franz, 1980). Just as there are non-personal daimones, connected in ancient times with families, city states, etc., so also there are family, national, and cultural complexes, which are shared by groups of people (Jung, CW 10; MacLennan, 2003). Thus Jungian psychology provides a connecting bridge between Neoplatonic philosophy and practice, on one side, and evolutionary psychology, grounded in neurophysiology and physics, on the other. On the one side, the phenomenological reality and importance of the archetypal forms is recognized, while on the other they are integrated into contemporary science, thus enriching both. In Jungian terminology, the Self is both the central archetype and the unity of all the archetypes. Jacobi describes it as an ultimately unknowable, transcendent centre of the personality, which paradoxicallyis at the same time its peripheryand is of the highest intensity, possessing an extraordinary power of irradiation. This centre and periphery Jung calls the Self, and he terms it the origin and fulfilment of the ego (Jacobi, 1967:49) The Self exists in the individual psyche, but participates in the phylogenetic Self, which exists in the objective psyche common to all people; Jung called it the archetype of the God-image (Jacobi, 1967:51). Jung further emphasises that the Self is paradoxical for, as the ultimate unifying element of the psyche, it comprises all the opposites. Thus the Jungian Self is seen to have much in common with the inexpressible One ( ) of Neoplatonism. As such, the Self is the psychical correlate of the human genome, which is the abstract source of all the archetypes, but the genome encodes the archetypes only in the context of the (abstract) laws of physics, according to which a DNA molecule, embodying the genome, regulates the development of an individual human. Thus, as Jung and the Neoplatonists both recognised, the archetypal forms are an emanation from an ultimate, transcendent, abstract, impersonal unity.

-6-

Space does not permit a more detailed discussion of the remarkably precise correlation between the psychical structures discovered by the Neoplatonists and Jung; please consult MacLennan (2005, 2006b). Theurgy Neoplatonic theurgy involved a number of spiritual practices, including dream incubation, animating divine images, voluntary possession by a god or daimn, liaison with same, and the theurgic ascent (Rosan, 1949:20417; Dodds, 1951:291 9; Lewy, 1978:chh. III, IV; Majercik, 1989:2146; Shaw, 1995:pt. III; Siorvanes, 1996:18999; Clarke, 2001). (Of course these practices were not restricted to Neoplatonism, but our focus here is on their use in the context of Neoplatonic theurgy and their relation of Jungian psychology. Our main primary source for theurgical theory is Iamblichuss Reply of Abammon, commonly known as De Mysteriis Aegyptiorum.) In dream incubation (), a suppliant, with the aid of priests and other specialists, performed preparatory rites in order to receive a prophetic, guiding, or healing dream from a divinity. In the final consecration () of a divine image, a rite of ensoulment () invited a divinity into the image, so that mortals may interact with the god. Similarly, by binding () a divinity or daimn might be invoked by a theurgist (the caller, ) to possess a seer (, ) to permit more effective communication, a possession from which he is later released (). By a process of liaison () a theurgist could establish a relationship with a god or daimn, especially for assistance and protection in the theurgical ascent. The theurgical ascent () is a process of symbolic death and rebirth through which an initiate ascends through the Neoplatonic levels of being, with the ultimate goal of union with the One, a kind of deification (). All of these practices depend, to a greater or lesser degree, on the use of symbols, signs, and tokens (, ). According to Neoplatonic philosophy, everything exists in (chains, chords, lineages) extending from the One, through archetypal forms, into the material world. Therefore the symbols in a

-7-

divinitys lineage can be used to tune a material thing, such as a divine image or seer, so that it is a suitable receptacle ( ) for that divinitys energy. Similarly, theurgists used such symbols to elevate themselves toward union with a particular divinity. Likewise, according to Jungian psychology, archetypes and complexes are associated with symbols, which can activate the archetype or complex causing it to manifest in conscious experience. Some of these symbolic associations are innate (and thus universals in the worlds mythologies and religious systems), but others are learned, and so they are specific to some group or even to an individual. These ancient theurgical practices have many parallels in modern analytic (Jungian) psychology. The use of dream incubation and analysis is well known, and Meier (1967) has documented the parallels with the ancient practice. Another important analytic procedure is active imagination, in which images and symbols (often from dreams) are used to connect with an archetype or complex, so that it may be engaged in conversation (Jung, 1997). Often, as in ancient theurgy, one begins by engaging a complex (daimn) and proceeds through it to an archetype (god). The purpose of active imagination is to understand why that archetype is active in the subjects life, so that its energies may be engaged more constructively to achieve a mutual accommodation or assimilation between unconscious forces and conscious behavior. Therefore Neoplatonic theurgy can suggest new analytic procedures, and evolutionary Jungian psychology can help us to understand the practical effects of ancient theurgy and how it contributed to psychological well-being. Jung (CW 9i:490) writes, I use the term individuation to denote the process by which a person becomes a psychological individual, that is, a separate, indivisible unity or whole. Thus, it is the process by which one becomes individuus (indivisible), which entails a rapprochement between the conscious ego and the unconscious, in particular, the archetypes and the Self. Thus, Individuation is a conscious attempt to bring the universal programme of human existence to its fullest possible expression in the life of the individual (Stevens, 2003:174).

-8-

Further, since individuation is the teleological trajectory of the psyche, it is inevitable, but a person may live a more fulfilling life through a conscious process of individuation (Jacobi, 1967). Indeed, the arc of life takes us (both physiologically and psychically) from an initial undifferentiated unity, through the progressive differentiation of ego consciousness and its orientation toward the material world, into the second half of life, in which vitality arises from an orientation toward lifes fulfillment or completion () in a higher unity. In Neoplatonic terms, individuation is a process of procession () from, and return () to, that which remains unchanged (), the archetypal Self, the Inexpressible One. According to Stevens (2003:173), the life-long struggle of each individual to achieve some resolution of the dissonance between the needs of the conscious personality and the dictates of the Self is at the very heart of the individuation process. The archetypes, and the complexes they have engendered, cannot be ignored or repressed, nor can they be banished; indeed, Psychopathology results from the frustration of archetypal goals (Stevens, 1993:86). On the other hand, our phylogenetic heritage, encoded in the human genome and represented by the archetypal forms of the collective unconscious, is from paleolithic huntergatherers living in groups of a few dozens, for this is how modern humans have survived for 99.5% of their two hundred thousand-year history (Stevens, 1993:67). From this fact we can infer much about the Primal or Archetypal Human, the , or simply familiar from Neoplatonic, Hermetic, and Gnostic texts (cf., Jung, CW 9ii:chs. 1314). Further, the Primal Humans gods are those autonomous archetypal forms corresponding to the instincts and the other innate perceptual, motivational, and behavioural structures that promoted the survival of Homo sapiens in its environment of evolutionary adaptedness. They are with us still, although they are not so well suited to the modern world. This is our modern dilemma, and a modernized theurgy could facilitate a constructive engagement with the archetypes and their complexes, so that they may be active in our lives and bring their vitality to it in a manner conformable with modern civilization and values. Fi-9-

nally, recognition of the psychical reality of the archetypes and its consistency with evolutionary psychology can help to complete our, otherwise materialist, modern worldview. Conclusions In conclusion, Neoplatonic philosophy and its spiritual practices, such as theurgy, have much in common with evolutionary Jungian psychology, because they both have at their core a phenomenological exploration of the archetypal structure of mind. As a consequence, empirical psychology can help us to understand ancient Neoplatonism and can show us how to adapt these ancient practices to the modern world to heal its maladies and to promote human well being. Bibliography Card, 1996 Charles R. Card, The emergence of archetypes in present-day science and its significance for a contemporary philosophy of nature. In Mind in Time: The Dynamics of Thought, Reality, and Consciousness, ed. A. Combs, B. Goertzel, and M. Germine: 259294. Cresskill: Hampton Press. Clarke, 2001 Emma C. Clarke, Iamblichus De Mysteriis: A Manifesto of the Miraculous. Aldershot: Ashgate. Dodds, 1951 Eric Robertson Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hadot, 1995 Pierre Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault, transl. M. Chase, intro. & ed., A.I. Davidson. New York: Blackwell. Hadot, 2002 Pierre Hadot, What Is Ancient Philosophy? Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Hillman, 1975a

-10-

James Hillman, Plotino, Ficino, and Vico as precursors of archetypal psychology. In Loose Ends: Primary Papers in Archetypal Psychology: 146-69. Zurich: Spring. Hillman, 1975b James Hillman, Re-Visioning Psychology. New York: Harper & Row. Hillman, 1996 James Hillman, The Souls Code: In Search of Character and Calling. New York: Random House. Iamblichus Iamblichus, Iamblichus on the Mysteries, trans., intro. & notes E.C. Clarke, J.M. Dillon, and J.P. Hershbell. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Jacobi, 1967 Jolande Jacobi, The Way of Individuation, transl. R.F.C. Hull. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Jung, CW Carl Gustav Jung, The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, ed. H. Read, M. Fordham, and G. Adler. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 195378; New York: Pantheon, 195360; and Bollingen Foundation, 196167; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 196778. Jung, 1965 Carl Gustav Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, rev. ed., recorded & ed. Aniella Jaffe, transl. by Richard and Clara Winston. New York: Vintage Books. Jung, 1997 Carl Gustav Jung, Jung on Active Imagination, ed. & intro. J. Chodorow. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Jung & Pauli, 1955 Carl Gustav Jung and Wolfgang Pauli, The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche. New York: Pantheon. Kingsley, 1995 Peter Kingsley, Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. -11-

Lewy, 1978 Hans Lewy, Chaldean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire. Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes. MacLennan, 2003 Bruce J. MacLennan, Evolutionary neurotheology and the varieties of religious experience. In Neurotheology: Brain, Science, Spirituality, Religious Experience, 2nd ed., ed. Rhawn Joseph: 317334. San Jose, CA: University Press, California. MacLennan, 2005 Bruce J. MacLennan, Evolution, Jung, and theurgy: Their role in modern Neoplatonism. In History of Platonism: Plato Redivivus, ed. J. Finamore and R. Berchman: 305322. New Orleans: University Press of the South. MacLennan, 2006a Bruce J. MacLennan, Evolutionary Jungian psychology, Psychological Perspectives 49, 1: 928. MacLennan, 2006b Bruce J. MacLennan, Individual soul and world soul: The process of individuation in Neoplatonism and Jung. In Wegmarken der Individuation, ed. T. Arzt and A. Holm: 83116. Wurzburg: Konigshausen & Neumann. MacLennan, in press Bruce J. MacLennan, Neoplatonism in science: Past and future. In Metaphysical Patterns in Platonism: Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance, and Modern, ed. Robert Berchman and John Finamore: 24159. New Orleans: University Press of the South. Majercik, 1989 Ruth Majercik, The Chaldean Oracles: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Leiden: Brill. Meier, 1967 Carl Alfred Meier, Ancient Incubation and Modern Psychotherapy, transl. M. Curtis. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Moore, 1990

-12-

Thomas Moore, The Planets Within: The Astrological Psychology of Marsilio Ficino. New York: Lindisfarne Books. Robertson, 1989 Robin Robertson, The Evolution of number: Self-reflection and the archetype of order. Psychological Perspectives 20, 1:12841. Rosn, 1949 Laurence Jay Rosan, The Philosophy of Proclus: The Final Stage of Ancient Thought. New York: Cosmos. Sabini, 2000 Meredith Sabini, The bones in the cave: Phylogenetic foundations of analytical psychology, Journal of Jungian Theory and Practice Fall 2000 Issue #2:1733. Shaw, 1995 Gregory Shaw, Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Siorvanes, 1996 Lucas Siorvanes, Proclus: Neo-Platonic Philosophy and Science. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Stevens, 1993 Anthony Stevens, The Two Million-year-old Self. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Stevens, 2003 Anthony Stevens, Archetype Revisited: An Updated Natural History of the Self. Toronto: Inner City Books. von Franz, 1974 Marie-Louise von Franz, Number and Time: Reflections Leading toward a Unification of Depth Psychology and Physics. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. von Franz, 1980 Marie-Louise von Franz, Projection and Re-collection in Jungian Psychology: Reflections of the Soul. La Salle: Open Court. -13-

Wallis, 1972 R.T. Wallis, Neo-Platonism. London: Duckworth.

-14-