Journal of Analytical Psychology 1985, 30, 247-250 Symposium THE SELF: CONCEPT AND FACT A. PLAUT, London ANYONE INTERESTED in the history of ideas will have observed that nothing is quite as certain as that a theory which is widely accepted today will be modified or discarded tomorrow. Occasionally, however, the reverse comes true: a theory that was refuted or generally rejected in its day may be resurrected, possibly many centuries later, and henceforth taken for granted. Aristarchus (310-230 B.C.) advanced the view that all the planets, including the earth, revolve around the sun, and that the earth revolves on its axis once in twenty-four hours. His successors on the whole adhered to the geocentric view. Copernicus’s famous work, De Revolutionibus Orbis Coelestium, appeared in 1543, the year of his death. (He knew of and acknowledged the Greek astronomers). Another example: Eratosthenes, born 276 B.c., basing himself on certain alleged facts, calculated the diameter of the earth with astonishing accuracy. His successors’ hypotheses that it was very much smaller prevailed—a fact which allowed Columbus to die in the belief, based on existing globes, that his long journey had led him to discover a western route to the East Indies. Gradually Eratosthenes was vindicated as the discovery of a new continent brought about new measurements. The history of psychology (arising out of philosophy) is much shorter than that of mathematics, astronomy and physics. We have no measurements and no proof in the sense that physics has. Yet we claim to be a ‘modern science’—see Stein (4). The main difference, apart from measurements and repeatability, is that this science is based on concepts (theoretical entities) which are not observable as such but are ‘put there to do a job’. According to Bertrand Russell (3) the main difference between Greek astronomy and, say, Newton’s is that the Greeks had no concept of force. Forces are invisible, like archetypes, you can recognise them by their effects. If the phenomena seem to bear out the postulated force in the dynamic system then the contraption 0021-8774/85/030247 + 04 $02.00/o © 1985 The Society of Analytical Psychology248 A, Plaut works. Jung claims more than that. In Aion, he wrote that ‘the transcendental idea of the self that serves psychology as a working hypothesis can never match the image because, although it is a symbol, it lacks the character of a revelatory historical event’. He goes on to say that the self is, in part at least, grounded neither on faith nor on metaphysical speculation but on experience. If the conditions are right ‘the unconscious spontaneously brings forth an archetypal symbol of wholeness’ (JUNG 2, para. 124). The individual may strive for perfection, but he must suffer from the opposite of his intentions: ‘completeness is forced upon us against all our conscious strivings, in accordance with the archaic nature of the archetype’ (Ibid., para. 123). The pictorial representation of the cross indicates this kind of opposite: it is a paradox that if it were only thought about, it would result in each opposite cancelling out the other. As it is, for the configuration to make the required image, the vertical and horizontal lines are equally required. Only a paradox can express the otherwise indescribable nature of the union (conjunction) of such opposite forces. So far so good. If we read about the kéans of Zen Buddhism and the developments in quantum physics we can bet an inkling of the cnormity of the demand on our sanity. As Niels Bohr, quoted by the physicist Paul Davies (1) puts it: ‘Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.’ I was on Stein’s side when he took issue with Jung about his psychology being empirical (STEIN 4, p. 10). Now I am no longer sure. But I still have difficulties when I read Jung on concepts which, like that of the self, arise out of experience of reality and are elucidated by further experience which turns them apparently into facts (JUNG 2, para. 63). I used to think of this as juggling with words. But my slender acquaintance with such mad- driving paradoxes of quantum physics and its highly practical applications, as that ‘facts’ depend on the act of observation, made Jung intelligible to me. Such understanding drives one to the very edge of sanity. If Jung’s vision arose from that very place in his mind (as we have reason to believe), small wonder that it makes us anxious too. The self, at once a concept and a fact, makes us fear for our own sanity at the moment when it impinges on our everyday realities. This and what follows are, in my opinion, the psychological reasons why there is controversy about the use of a small ‘s’ or a big ‘S’ for the word self. First, the concept can be used in many different ways (I believe Joe Redfearn’s forthcoming book will be entitled My self, my many selves); secondly, the self embodies paradoxes that we may just be able to grasp by experiencing them without intellectual understanding. Uncertainty and anxiety are stirred up in our minds because we are accustomed to think rationally. Reflecting on this makes me wonderThe Self: Concept and Fact 249 whether the controversy in question is a symptomatic displacement of yet more anxiety. The present controversy about capital or small letters is, as such, irrelevant. Jung’s discovery, like many discoveries in other fields of knowledge and like ‘archetype or individuation process’, is a rediscovery of ideas which help us to observe facts and to create order out of chaos. Its application to psychology and therapy is Jung’s original contribution which has spawned further applications, ¢.g., in the form of observations about childhood and infancy. Finding the self in numberless symbolic images, Jung (Ibid, para. 59) regarded wholeness as the tops in the hierarchy of archetypes, as the symbol of unity and totality. This view leads to a structural rather than a dynamic interpretation. Such different uses make me wonder whether it really is still a continuous and coherent entity and I ask myself how soon might it be demoted (like, paradoxically, being ‘kicked upstairs’ to the House of Lords), modified, or even replaced by some other vision. I think about the self as a force or field, comparable with gravity or, possibly, synchronicity. In its non-sensuous quality it compares with the archetype which is endowed with something like a magnetic field: we call it ‘fascination’. But then again, it may also be a fact which materialises from time to time: a kind of ghost until it is observed. How do I personally use the term self? Essentially, in two ways: first, when I recognise my personal repetitive fiction in events to which I have unwittingly contributed. Secondly, when I become aware of the autonomous processes of my body and the ‘chemistry’ set up between myself and others, of which mind alone knows nothing. To sum up: The self is a word in our language and a concept in dynamic psychologies; it appears in symbolic images; also as a paradox, and even as a fact. As a technical term the self suffers from being synonymous with the word used in daily language. The situation is like that of the ‘I’ (German Ich) before it became known as the ego. Because it has acquired too many shades of meaning the time may be ripe for a review of the various functions assigned to the self. A new notation may help to prevent the self from becoming over-used, trite. To indicate this requirement by capital or small letters (which in any case cannot be heard in spoken English) would be totally inadequate. REFERENCES 1. Daviss, P. (1984). God and the New Physics. London. Penguin. 2. June, C. G. (1951). ‘Christ as a symbol of the self’ in Aion. Coll. Wks, 9, 2.250 A. Plaut 3. Russext, B. (1946). History of Western Philosophy. London. Allen & Unwin. 4. Stein, L. (1957). ‘What is a symbol supposed to be?’ in Analytical Psychology: a Modern Science. Academic Press, 1980.Copyright of Journal of Analytical Psychology is the property of Blackwell Publishing Limited and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted toa listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.