著者

垂谷 茂弘

出版者

宗教哲学会

雑誌

宗教哲学研究 (ISSN:02897105)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.5, pp.78-95, 1988 (Released:2018-03-15)

---

The “individuation” is the process of breaking away from “participation mystique.” The participation mystique is based on “identity,” an a priori oneness of subject and object, which can be thought of as the ‘unconscious’ itself. The process of individuation is, finally, the separation of subject from object. Then the problem is whether the identity between subject and object disappears when one realizes his whole personality (the self). Jung himself thinks we cannot become conscious of the entire unconsious. So, the identity must remain even in self-realization. We can sublate (aufheben) the inner and outer worlds only through symbolism. Even then we must preserve the distinction between them. However, there ought to be something fundamental that underlies the two worlds. Then the suspicion will arise that symbolism, especially that pertaining to synchronicity, is a movement back to the participation mystique. I try to prove the individuation is not the work of a single individual, but the dialectical cooperative work of the consciousnesses and the unconscious of “I and thou.” The foundation of this work is the identity, which in clinical psychology is treated as the problem of transference. In chapter 2, I investigate the union of the self and the “unus mundus,” following Jung’s final line of thought with regard to the question of the identity. I demonstrate, however, that Jung wouldn’t go beyond the psychological framework. Thus, I find the foundation of Jung’s thought in the concept of “numinous” experience and the “world-creating significance of the consciousness”.

著者

垂谷 茂弘

出版者

宗教哲学会

雑誌

宗教哲学研究 (ISSN:02897105)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.19, pp.29-43, 2002 (Released:2019-03-21)

---

Jung has an ambivalent attitude toward “transference,” because it involves problems which are multilayered and full of paradoxes, like any other phenomenon of the soul. But “transference” is essential for individuation, since an internal and subjective process of integration is inseparable from the process of developing objective relationships. These ideas fit together with his fundamental point of view — “esse in anima.” Jung criticizes Freud’s view that “transference” is an artificial new edition of the old disorder. Jung thinks it is a natural phenomenon caused by fate. Since in any intimate human relationship it can take place anywhere outside the consulting-room, there is no technique with which we could control it. Both the occurrence and the resolution of transference are stages of a transformation which involve transpersonal numinous experiences. But at the same time the resolution demands the total effort of both the analyst and his client. Only their moral torment occasioned by the opposites will make a symbolic resolution possible. “One connection in the transference which does not break off with the severance of the projection” is the state linked to the All-Zusammenhang (unus mundus). This is a positive aspect of the participation mystique. Only then can one realize one’s whole personality which is open to others and the world, and which is founded on the numinosum. Jung says, “Individuation always means relationship.”