point of view of the other, the intellect’s, side, because the intellect is devalued as “our playful intellect” and thus as per definitonem incompetent in matters of higher meaning:22 “Our intellect is absolutely incapable of understanding these things”23 [writes Jung]. […] But why does Jung restrict himself to this narrow-minded sense of “intellect”? This would by no means be necessary. It is his choice. Therefore, despite the form in which his statement is presented, one must not mistake it for an innocent statement of fact, a mere observation. It is rather a refusal or prohibition: “do not touch symbols with the intellect! The intellect shall be excluded on principle!”24
Given that “The intellect must not enter them [i.e. the contents of the collective unconscious] thinkingly […] This means that ultimately consciousness has to be in itself unconscious: both sides of the pair of opposites, consciousness and the unconscious, are together the unconscious.”25
“Thus the notion of the “unconscious” does not really mean a realm, region or agency in the psyche. It primarily is a label that declares the contents to which it is applied as fundamentally taboo, untouchable: inaccessible to conscious knowing and intellectual penetration. This label putsthem into a particular logical status, the status of irrevocable un-consciousness. It erects an unsurmountable, namely logical barrier [whereby…] consciousness is [merely] permitted to look at the “contents of the unconscious” through the glass pane…”26
So Jung often attached himself to the No 2 non-thinking imprisonment of the unconscious. Giegerich writes that
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29