Understanding the human psyche, the Tarot, psychology, and mysticism

I recently recognized a fairly large dichotomy. There appears to be those that embrace a psychological aspect to the Tarot and those that disdain it. And the really surprising thing that I have found about this dichotomy is the apparent animosity that exists between the two extremes. I believe this is very detrimental chasm. So this post is really for me to understand how wide this chasm is, and to hopefully bring the two sides together, at least a little.

The first postulation I would like to make, which is quite open for debate, is the nature of that chasm. Because I have somewhat of a scientific mind, I understand the scientific approach. But I am also a person that has always harbored an immense disdain for "academics" and "professionals", and generally all those that think a simple piece of paper, education, or knowledge has anything to do with real wisdom. Knowledge is a tool, like the Tarot, and has nothing to do with wisdom. True wisdom comes from within.

First, I will label the two perspectives the psychological perspective and the mystical perspective. These are only labels for the two perspectives, as I see them, nothing more. These labels absolutely do not infer that those with a mystical approach do not believe in psychology, and those with a psychological approach do not believe in mysticism. Actually, I think that is fundamental distortion I am trying to illuminate. I believe both perspectives believe in and are seeking the same things, it is simply the terminology, and the labels, that keeps the two perspectives divided.

Jung was a mystic in every sense of the word; he simply wrapped his words in science so that they would be acceptable and understandable to this cold, rational, scientific world. A world that has been blinded by science! (Click here to view the Blinded by Science video on YouTube) And I also believe many "Jungians" are equally blinded by the scientific words that Jung used.

Thus I believe the nature of the chasm is that both those with a psychological approach and those with a mystical approach are both equally blinded by the scientific terms that Jung used, and do not hear the real message. And in pretty much the same way, those with a mystical approach are blinded by the mystical terminology that A. E. Waite used. If Jung or Waite's messages were truly heard, then it would be obvious that those messages are fundamentally the same.

However, because the mystical approach has had no lack of explanation and exploration on these boards, the goal of this post is to explore the psychological approach, to demystify it, so to speak, to illuminate how Jung was just as much of a Mystic as A. E. Waite, and how his message was just as mystical as any of the other mystical approaches to the Tarot presented on this board.

I must make an important distinction; I am labeling Jung's approach as the psychological approach. But that label is actually horribly inaccurate. The science of psychology does not explain the Tarot in any way. Jung, the mystic, explains the Tarot. More accurately, Jung explains the message behind the Tarot, using psychological terminology and using psychological metaphors. The study of psychology is only useful in helping us understand Jung's terminology, and may actually be a hindrance to understanding Jung. And for those with a mystical approach that know the message of the Tarot, there isn't much that can be learned from studying Jung that cannot be learned elsewhere. For some, the only reason to learn Jung is to communicate with others who understand science and are unable to see beyond it, or to possibly deepen a current understanding.

So for those with a mystical approach, my goal for this post is to illuminate the psychological concepts and terminology used, so that terminology is not a barrier to communication. And for those with a psychological approach, my goal is illuminate the psychological concepts and terminology used, to hopefully begin to illuminate Jung's true message that appears to have become lost underneath the thin veneer of psychological analysis.

I have discussed Jung's other concepts in posts that I will provide links to at the end of this thread. But Jung's biggest concept, and I believe the one that causes the most confusion, is Jung's concept of archetypes and the collective unconscious. Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious is also the title of volume 9 (part 1) of C. G. Jung's Collected Works. (Part 2 of volume 9 is entitled, Aion.)

The Collective Unconscious
The first step to understanding Jung, is to understand his term of the collective unconscious. Jung proposed that the human psyche is separated into three distinct but connected parts, a trinity, so to speak. First is the conscious mind. This is simply our conscious thoughts, desires, etc. The conscious mind controls our will and our view of our identity. The important thing to remember about our conscious mind is that it is not who we are, it is simply our thoughts or understanding of who we are.

The next component is the personal unconscious. This is also known in psychology, outside Jungian psychology, as the subconscious. The personal unconscious contains all the thoughts, lessons, images, sights, and sounds that we have ever experienced throughout our entire lives that are not currently in our conscious mind. The personal unconscious can be thought of as the storehouse of everything that has ever entered our conscious mind, but which is not currently in our conscious mind, or being actively thought of. It is also important to mention that the personal unconscious really contains everything that we have ever experienced, whether or not our conscious mind recognized it, or thought of it at the time it was experienced.

And then finally, there is the collective unconscious. Jungian psychology essentially defines the collective unconscious as a deeper level of the unconscious. But I believe that definition is constraining and possibly misleading. The collective unconscious may be directly connected to the personal unconscious, and thus implicitly to the conscious, but it is much larger and much more expansive than something that is simply contained within our physical brain. It is the core framework that makes us human, the underlying blueprint of humanity; it is the thing that connects us and makes us part of humanity.

And this term is an example of the fundamental crux of the dichotomy I mentioned at the beginning of this post, as well as the misconceptions that I mentioned as well. Jung labeled and positioned the collective unconscious within the human psyche. He was a psychologist after all, someone who was supposed to be studying the human mind. So all his components must be placed within the human mind to adhere to the "science" that he was constrained by. But the collective unconscious is much larger than that, and Jung knew it. He labeled and disguised what he was talking about in psychological terms, to adhere to the scientific framework that he was using to express his ideas. But the collective unconscious is no more a physical part of the human mind, than the intelligence used to create an idea is a physical part of the idea itself. When Jung talks about the collective unconscious he is relating a broad, expansive concept that is just as much a part of the human mind as it isn't. And those that reduce the collective unconscious to simply a component part of the human psyche will completely misinterpret the concept that Jung was proposing. I am sure all those that follow the mystical approach could understand this concept immediately, if they didn't apparently automatically reject it due to its scientific label.

I told a fellow poster, re-peta-a, that I found his comments on Jung to quite pertinent and relevant, because I am convinced that he understands the collective unconscious better than most psychologists, even Jungian psychologists that have studied Jung and psychology for most of their lives. Jungians appear to have accepted the scientific label that Jung applied to this concept, and have stopped asking questions, whereas the mystics appear to have rejected it without even attempting to understand, because it is scientific and thus not compatible with their views. Both points of view are equally blinding.

So what is the collective unconscious? That is really the fundamental question. This is purely a psychological label being put upon something this is far beyond the human mind. Let me refer to Jung himself:

No, the collective unconscious is anything but an incapsulated personal system; it is sheer objectivity, as wide as the world and open to all the world.

C. G. Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious CW vol 9 (1)

Click to expand...

Does that sounds like he is describing a component of the human mind? Really? And just what part of my mind is "open to all the world"?

But in order for us to understand, we must use labels. These labels or words are the concrete representation of ideas, which have acquired their meaning through our collective decision to use those labels or words to represent a particular meaning.

The collective unconscious, according to Jung, is the connection that makes us human. Whereas Freud believed we are a "product of our environment", Jung believed that we have a "core" that makes us human, which we are born with. In other words, we are born with the basic "framework" of who we are, and then our environment builds on that framework, or provides "color" to the framework. But Freud believed that essentially, anyone could be molded into anything, because at birth we are a "blank slate".

Freud believed in a conscious and subconscious. Jung broke with that model when he broke the subconscious into two parts, and introduced the collective unconscious. Jung believed we are more than just a product of our environment. Freud was the scientist trying to isolate and analyze the mind; Jung was the philosopher trying to pry it open.

For a scientific explanation, it can be said that the collective unconscious is the part of our unconscious that is universal and shared with our fellow humans. It is the foundation of our unconscious, the fundamental building blocks of who we are and what makes us human. From a mystical perspective, you can think of the collective unconscious as that something else or something extra.

Jung called the individual fundamental building blocks, mentioned above, archetypes. Archetypes are the fundamental forces at work in the collective unconscious. For those of us on this board, we could call these Tarot cards.

I previously wrote another post on another Jungian concept that I believe to be applicable to the Tarot as well, that is Jung's concept of the Symbol. This concept should equally be looked at with "non-scientific" eyes. The power of the Symbol is not explained by science either.

Click here to view the thread: Jungian analysis and the Tarot

When we begin to understand the model for the human psyche that Jung proposes, then we begin to understand ourselves. The Tarot is also a tool for understanding ourselves, so it makes sense that the two are compatible. And when we begin to understand ourselves, we begin to understand our world, and when we begin to understand our world, we begin to understand our universe, or the nature of our world...

So what were Jung and Waite really talking about again?

Related links:

Click here to view the thread: Jungian Function Types and the Tarot

Click here to view the thread: David Keirsey's Temperaments, Jung's process of individuation, and the Tarot

ETA:
The collective unconscious is what is behind the veil of The High Priestess.

Of Waite, Yeats, Crowley and Tarot mystics

Of those who were of the Golden Dawn, their mysticism looked both within themselves and also tried to form both brotherhood and sisterhood of adepts that embraced more concepts than within their own cultural upbringing and context.

But what I have read of Waite is more conservative if looked at today and in a Western way and his mysticism feels quite Western and Christian--of course sincerely genuine and deep for his time.

My opinion is in considering the artistic or tarot mystical aspects of these gentlemen (Waite, Yeats, Crowley) with Jung as the comparison--just my opinion from what I have seen of their work. And I have read also evaluations of their respective legacies..

For Waite-the mystical cartomancy volumes he wrote and revised under Grand Orient and under his own name. While I have just begun to look at his Cartomancy material volumes One and Two, some of it looks lifted from other French tests. He repeated in his Key and Pictorial Key to the Tarot about half to two-thirds of material, if not more, of Julia Orsini 1850 French text. Waite did not seem to have the clarity of language or perhaps the help of a good translator or visualist after PCS when I look for good visuals of what he meant in terms of tarot. I somehow equate Jung's mystical world view as more far and transcending than beyond Waite's Celtic twilight.

I noticed the preference of Yeats, Jung and Crowley to build upon the Marseilles majors ordering, not Waites astrological switch between 8 and 11 in the majors. If one is writing from Waites collection of old cartomancy meanings and prefers the older trumps ordering of 8 as Justice, the learning --perhaps a look at older sources using the Marseilles ordering might be of value.

I would suggest Yeats was a more experimental mystic throughout his life, more as Jung in looking in other cultural contexts--more able to do poetic mystical tarot allegory in his expression--and yet even Yeats was constrained in some contexts in expressing his visualizations. Yeats depended on other artistic friends such as Dulac to illustrate his concepts publically. Yeats poems and works though have really do seem to feel of exploring tarot themes and have tarot characters and there are writers who speak of Yeats and tarot. Although I have read and agree Yeats was constrained and hampered in really trying to figure out esoteric mysticism and Eastern arts as throughly as we might know them today. People delving into how Yeats tried to equate soul stages of mystical and spiritual enlightenment with Moon phases in A Vision find it quite mysterious. Yeats also tried to portray Japanese Noh concepts without the depth of better translations we have today, so the commentary today sometimes questions his work on the artistic appeal.

In contrast, Jung's art mysticism seems more visually experimental and less constrained by just a Western
paradigm. I am just checking out his alchemical picture choices in his Dreams collected works and Mandalas in his Red Book. He has an artistic eye and I have seen a number of the same Alchemical illustration choices in some texts of Robert Place, a tarot author and artist. I keep thinking of Jung as more modern in his mysticism and art.
Place has been teaching classes for more than a few years with the Jungian four functions expressed in spreads and concepts of archetypes especially in the Alchemical Tarot.

I just don't feel only one tarot such
as the Rider Waite really expresses or touches on Jung's understanding of symbols and his artistic expression.

If looking at the Golden Dawn mystics I also have to include Crowley.

If I looked at Waite, Yeats and Crowley in terms of their backgrounds, tarot expressiveness and works...Crowley had more travel and experience and had a really great artistic translator in Lady Frieda Harris. That tarot really seems to be modern and yet art nouveaux also...and to me, it's complexity and the Thoth tarot characterizations of the courts as expressed by Rose Gwain work is closer to me in expressing Jung's four functions.

If you have seen Rose Gwains book but still feel Waite and the Rider Waite is a better fit to mystical expression of Jung's four functions, then consider these just alternative views.
Her book seems to be both psychological and mystical...to me, many of the mature readers or tarot fans here seem to have both aspects integrated in their reading.

Best wishes

Cerulean

JSNYC said:

The collective unconscious, according to Jung, is the connection that makes us human. Whereas Freud believed we are a "product of our environment", Jung believed that we have a "core" that makes us human, which we are born with. In other words, we are born with the basic "framework" of who we are, and then our environment builds on that framework, or provides "color" to the framework. But Freud believed that essentially, anyone could be molded into anything, because at birth we are a "blank slate".

Click to expand...

I have a personal experience that proves Jung right (I believe) in what you say here... or at least, I'm ignorant to any scientific explanations that could be out there.

I have 2 very, very early memories. One of them, I was being held by a woman with red lip stick and my overall feeling was of disorientation... sort of a "Where am I?" confused feeling, and then there was a flash of light, and I remember the slow body reaction of closing my eyes for what seemed like a long time after it occurred. That was all I remember, but years later, I ended up coming across this picture ('the flash') of my grandmother holding me as a baby. I don't know how old I was- I was swaddled in a blanket if that tells you anything! Of course, that doesn't prove anything to you probably, but it proves a lot to me, especially since I have pictured proof of that memory.

The other time, I don't have pictured proof, unfortunately. I do know that I was old enough to sit up by myself but I couldn't talk. If I had to estimate my age, I'd say 6 months to 1 year. Mostly likely I was 6-7 months because I was born in May, and Thanksgiving and Christmas were the 2 biggest holidays. I remember sitting in a high chair at my grandmother's kitchen table. I've deduced that it must have been for a holiday get-together because my aunt was sitting on one end of the table (and she lived farther away and only came to my grandmother's for holidays), my mother on the other end and I was at the side of the table... in between them. They were talking about something and my aunt was sharing some sort of problem she was having to deal with. In my little baby mind, I 'knew' the answer- I remember trying to formulate it to get it out of my mouth. All I remember looking back on it, was that it was 'quite wise' and beyond the vocabulary or thinking capacity of an infant. But, as I tried to speak, only jarbled sounds came out of my mouth, and I remember feeling quite strained in my throat... I grew quite frustrated with myself that my mouth wasn't working with my thoughts. Ultimately, I decided (yes, decided!) that it wasn't going to work, and "I need to remember this when I get big."

So, if there is a scientific explanation for either of those, I'd like to hear it. However, I'm inclined to believe that a baby who Freud said is a product of their environment wouldn't be capable of these 'wise thoughts' or 'discernable feelings'... let alone remember them... and it wasn't as if I had a strong opinion toward my aunt's specific situation. I don't think it was an opinion at all - it felt wise. It felt as if I was about to tell her the secret to happiness... maybe I should go under hypnosis, maybe I should see what exactly a baby's mind is capable of- maybe we've all done it and just don't remember... in any case, it makes me feel that Jung was more right, and at this point in time, it is slightly more mystical than scientific as far as I know.

Thank you for your question JSNYC... I'm not sure how fully I understand it, so I hope my response isn't too wayward.

I agree that the differing perspectives - psychological & mystical - are largely about labels and language. Your discussion reminds me of an analogy I learnt from a wise woman I know - it's like a room with a chair in the middle and two people looking in at the chair through two different windows. Both swear that the chair is defined by their particular view of it and refuse to come to agreement. But they're discussing the same chair! The only way they'd be able to agree would be if they went to each other's windows and looked at the chair from the other person's perspective.Then they'd realise they're talking about the same thing. Language, labels and perspective have much to answer for, rather like the RWS pictorial depiction of the 5 of swords.

My approach is to integrate the two perspectives. I did a couple of courses in Jungian psychology in my early days of Tarot, studied a bit of psychology at uni and interspersed this with private study of Tarot, though I've never looked at Waite in any depth, nor Crowley (I was repulsed by the personal history of the latter). The Jungian perspective has always been my preferred 'psychology', mostly because it fits so nicely with Tarot and it's creator fully acknowledged the power of mystical energies, particularly through his thesis re synchronicity which had, prior to his work, really only been approached in the scientific/humanities realm of anthropology. The latter was more inclined to view synchronicity as 'accidental', a perception that is often attached to the accurate predictions of tarot.

There are a host of psychological theories and therapies, some of which seem to resonate with the mystical perspective, like the Gestalt & transpersonal approaches. Freud based many of his understandings on mythology, some of the latter stories have been used as the themes for some decks, e.g. the Mythic. I tend toward an eclectic slant beyond my preference for Jung's framework.

Having said all of this I still understand why some might be annoyed by the insistence that the psychological perspective is more acceptable and less likely (than Tarot) to include charlatanism as part of its repertoire. Charlatans aren't exclusive to Tarot, however a big part of the history of Tarot has included inquisitions & accusations of devilry - it makes one wonder how connected the collective consciousness (and unconsciousness) of this might be entangled with the 'war' between the two perspectives.

On a closing note I'd just like to say that I agree, fundamentally, with your understanding of wisdom, however I do believe that knowledge forms a part of wisdom, specifically in how it is used. And maybe that's the crux of the chasm between the two perspectives (?)

Blessings
{(~_~)}

The nature of the chasm between a psychological approach to the tarot and a mystical approach is a matter of worldview.

A mystic seeks union/understanding of the divinity - mind of God/Goddess. A psychologist seeks understanding the human mind.

It could be that they crossover to one another at extremes, but this is not necessarily so. Just because one person can resolve this difference/chasm within their worldview does not mean that another person can.

But, most importantly, neither Golden Dawn mysticism (Waite born 1857) nor Jungian psychoanalysis (Jung born 1875) were around until hundreds of years after there was a Tarot.

Pythagorean asceticism, Neo-Platonic mysticism, Astrology, and Alchemy were all the rage in the courts of Northern Italy around 1450 (approximate date of the Visconti-Sforza deck).

Cerulean said:

I just don't feel only one tarot such as the Rider Waite really expresses or touches on Jung's understanding of symbols and his artistic expression.

Click to expand...

Excellent post, Cerulean! Very informative! I read Rose Gwain's book, I liked her Jungian approach very much. However, I didn't particularly like how she applied it to the Tarot. And my references to Symbols refer too much more than the symbolism on the cards. I referred to this, and my opinions of Waite's reordering of cards 8 and 11 in this post:

Click here to view my post in the thread: Tarot & Theme Decks - When is it not Tarot?

Amanda_04 said:

I have a personal experience that proves Jung right (I believe) in what you say here... or at least, I'm ignorant to any scientific explanations that could be out there.

Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing, Amanda. You know, I think when we are kids may be the only time we really, truly see the world as it really is... But that is before we understand it, which is part of the problem.

hazlit said:

Thank you for your question JSNYC... I'm not sure how fully I understand it, so I hope my response isn't too wayward.

Click to expand...

It was absolutely not wayward! I loved your comments on perspective. They are quite relevant. And I think that was a lot of what Jung was trying to do, give us a new or different perspective.

RexMalaki said:

The nature of the chasm between a psychological approach to the tarot and a mystical approach is a matter of worldview.

Click to expand...

Perfect!

The only thing I would disagreed with, was implying Jung a psychologist.

Click here to see my post in the thread: Jungian analysis and the Tarot.

Thanks for your reply; I've enjoyed the posts

JSNYC said:

And my references to Symbols refer too much more than the symbolism on the cards. I referred to this, and my opinions of Waite's reordering of cards 8 and 11 in this post:

Click here to view my post in the thread: Tarot & Theme Decks - When is it not Tarot?

Click to expand...

Thanks and am glad you did link to it for people to read and understand your points. I did read your ideas there before.

I've enjoyed this discussion, as I was able earlier to develop my own ideas a little further in my previous post. Alchemically speaking, will have to cook and simmer some ideas a few days more after this. Likely more people will add to this thread after some study on the topics as well.

Best wishes until later,

Cerulean

JSNYC said:

Perfect!

The only thing I would disagreed with, was implying Jung a psychologist.

Click here to see my post in the thread: Jungian analysis and the Tarot.

Click to expand...

Jung was actually a psychiatrist. After qualifying as a medical doctor, he then studied and practised psychiatry in one or two different hospital settings. A lot of his early work was with schizophrenics. Have a look at 'Memories, Dreams & Reflections' (his biography). And yep - a mystic as well! (though I'm not sure there's a certificate for that anywhere .... lol)

Cerulean said:

I've enjoyed this discussion, as I was able earlier to develop my own ideas a little further in my previous post. Alchemically speaking, will have to cook and simmer some ideas a few days more after this. Likely more people will add to this thread after some study on the topics as well.

Click to expand...

And I enjoyed your post as well! It actually raised a few questions for me, but I think my questions are slightly off-topic for this thread, so I will wait until another time to bring them up! You have a lot of knowledge and I appreciate your contributions!

Floss said:

Jung was actually a psychiatrist. After qualifying as a medical doctor, he then studied and practised psychiatry in one or two different hospital settings. A lot of his early work was with schizophrenics. Have a look at 'Memories, Dreams & Reflections' (his biography). And yep - a mystic as well! (though I'm not sure there's a certificate for that anywhere .... lol)

Click to expand...

I agree. But I think Jung's psychiatric practice was... more like a research lab. (Although I don't mean to insinuate that he wasn't truly trying to help people either.) Essentially, I view the equation like this:

Jung practiced psychiatry to learn about the human mind (and much more!), so he could understand and write about psychology (or the human mind), so he could present his mystical message! (In psychological terms. )

I'm greatly enjoying this thread. I'm learning a lot from it as well. My own personal take (yes, JSNYC, you're preaching to the choir here) is that the two aspects are so closely related I couldn't begin to peel them apart. My own orientation is far more mystical than scientific, true, but I've always been interested in psychology, and I often view astrology as a psychological tool. What gripes me about psychology these days is the increasing insistence that the human brain (and the mind it operates) is at the mercy of chemical reactions and that alone. What ever happened to free will??