Jungian Psychoanalysis and Evangelion

Over time, notable threads from ANF will be preserved here for the Benefit of All.

Moderators: Ornette, Monk Ed

JFaulkner [ANF]
Embryo
Posts: 36
Joined: Dec 21, 2008

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby JFaulkner [ANF] » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:33 pm

Given the wall of silence which met my rough ideas (http://animenation.net/forums/showpo...&postcount=84), here is a new thread which reproduces them below, so that they won't get lost among other arguments.

I'm slightly surprised by the silence since I would have thought this type of analysis would be right up the streets of some Eva-fans here. So any takers? Rubbish? Made some sense? Or what?

Also, for people who think I am over-analyzing, I invite them to look at the reasons I wrote for the validity of using a Jungian framework in this thread http://animenation.net/forums/showthread.php?t=197167.

Originally posted on: 20-Apr-2007, 15:56 GMT

JFaulkner [ANF]
Embryo
Posts: 36
Joined: Dec 21, 2008

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby JFaulkner [ANF] » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:33 pm

Part 1:

The post was made on the spur of the moment, so I wrote most of it from the top of my head. Purpose of the post is just to put a flag on the ground showing that the relevance of Jung, and hence psychoanalysis, to Evangelion is not shallow. Given that I've written this on the fly, it isn't fully referenced to Jung's work, but I have referenced any quotes. It also means that I don't claim the arguments are perfect, so feel free to raise any issues. It's a very, very rough outline.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very rough introduction to Jung:

Jung studied people with mental problems. From his studies, he postulated two mental domains. 1. Consciousness (= ego) - pretty self explanatory. 2. Unconscious - this part consists of repressed (either voluntarily or involuntarily) thoughts and those irrational mental processes which cannot be conceptualized fully in a rational way (and hence perceived by consciousness). Our psyche is the totality of all psychic (mental) processes, and obviously includes both 1 and 2. Analogous to the physical body, the psyche needs energy to function (probably has parallels to nerve impulses). This psychic energy Jung called "Libido" (not to be confused with Freud's usage). Energy can come in different forms (analogous to heat, kinetic etc.) - hence Libido can be found giving rise to conscious or unconscious phenomena. The development of the human mind from that similar to the first human's (through evolutionary history) takes the course of an increasing consciousness - being able to see the big picture, think long-term, form strategies, reason using logic, perceive the whole shebang etc. Thus, Jung conceptualized the unconscious as the original source of Libido and within it there is a store of undifferentiated (not of any form) Libido which can then differentiate and give rise to unconscious and conscious phenomena.

Now, as one's mind becomes more unconscious, we lose some or a lot of conscious control of ourselves - imagine just before going to sleep, swimming until you get really out of breath, being really tired, etc. Thus, Jung uses the phrase that we are like the object to which other people are the subject - that is, we don't feel ourselves in control as the subject, but feel like an object pulled in different directions by forces we cannot control. This led Jung to conceptualize unconscious contents as similar to the "soul." Plato et al. saw the soul as "that which moves itself" - some sort of force of unknown origin. From the preceding consideration, unconscious contents seem to control us from an unknown source, to give a sort of life to inanimate material. Thus, Jung used the word soul, or anima to denote part of the unconscious contents. Now in dreams, fantasies and daydreams, some unconscious contents break out into our consciousness because our threshold of consciousness has been lowered. From his studies, Jung found that images pertaining to one's mother is common. Thus, he associated these mother-images to the anima - the mother symbolizes the anima, because like the anima, the mother is seen as a life-giver (through birth). Now this sounds all a bit pointless, but the raison d'etre is that Jung wanted to interpret dreams, and to do this, he had to conceptualize images according to some framework which render a meaning. And seeing the mother as an unconscious force allowed Jung to postulate a route towards sanity, for people suffering from, or in danger of, schizophrenia. For Jung, schizophrenia means a sort of conscious/unconscious split - think of someone who has lost some sort of conscious reasoning ability and who seems to be governed by unconscious contents beyond his control - one is "not oneself". So the basic idea is that these cases occur because his patients are running away from something which is hidden in their unconscious - these unconscious contents can become energetic enough to disturb our consciousness; thus, we need to dredge them out and forge them into our conscious way of life. Dreams help to resolve the conflict, because say, you had dreamt about a long series of mother images. This shows that your unconscious activity is overflowing, and that indicates you might be heading towards schizophrenia, because you are hiding a hell of a lot of baggage in your unconscious. Thus, in a dream, if one escapes from this "devouring mother," perhaps with a rebirth through her womb, then this signifies that one is at last free from the binds of the unconscious. Jung saw many parallels with dreams such as these and myths of yore. Thus, the somewhat cryptic sentence by Jung "I took it upon myself to get to know "my" myth, and I regarded this as the task of tasks" (http://www.animeboards.com/showthrea...#post537837802) - that is, he wanted to get to know his unconscious contents, to get a better idea of his whole psyche.

Now onto Evangelion.


Propositions:
The Evangelions represent the unconscious, LCL represents the Libido, the soul inside EVA-01 represents part of Shinji's anima, the soul inside EVA-02 represents Asuka's anima, Rei is part of Shinji's anima, Eva-00 has no resident soul and AT Field represents barrier between consciousness and unconscious.


Rough argument
Eva-01 and Eva-02 have the souls of Shinji and Asuka's mothers. Soul (or anima) is what Jung uses to refer to unconscious contents, and thus, which of the two mothers is present tells you whose unconscious each refers to. LCL is a fluid, dynamic, undifferentiated liquid-like substance, just like Libido in its undifferentiated state. Thus LCL symbolizes undifferentiated Libido, which, as per above, resides in the unconscious (and thus, the Evangelion symbolizes the unconscious as a whole). Also, it has been referred to as the "soup of life" in Eva, and undifferentiated Libido is like the source of all our psychic activities ("life"). There is also a remarkable passage in Jung's Collected Works Part 9 (i) (PG21-2) - here Jung is describing what the unconscious is like [my italics, bold lettering and numbering]:

"a boundless expanse full of unprecedented uncertainty, with apparently no inside and no outside, no above and no below, no here and no there, no mine and no thine, no good and no bad. It is the world of water (1) , where all life floats in suspension; where .... the soul of everything living, begins (2) ; where I am indivisibly this and that; where I experience the other in myself and the other-than-myself experiences me (3) ....

There I am utterly one with the world (4) , so much a part of it that I forget all too easily who I really am. "Lost in oneself" is a good way of describing this state. But this self is the world, if only a consciousness could see it. (5) "
Compare this with what Rei drones out in EoE [my italics, bold lettering and numbering]:

"Shinji:
Ayanami - where are we?

Rei:
This is the sea of LCL (1) - The primordial soup of life (2).
A world without AT Fields - without your own shape.
An ambiguous world where it is impossible to tell where you end and other people start.
A fragile world where you exist everywhere, and thus exist nowhere. (3)


Shinji:
Have I died?

Rei:
No, everything has just been joined into one (4) .
This is the world you have been hoping for... your world. (5) "
I've paired off sections which are similar using numbers. The similarities are so striking that I don't even need to point them out. This shows in clear fashion, that there are real similarities to Jung. This is also why I am interested to see what Jung material Anno has read. The point of the comparison is to show that Jung's Libido ("water") equates to LCL, and further, if the AT Fields are lost, then we are left with a collapse of consciousness (similar to that seen in schizophrenia - which argues for the case that Shinji suffered from this - must stress Jung's definition of schizophrenia, not the modern one), and we are left wallowing in our unconscious thoughts (the soup of life or whatever the hell you want to call it).

Other evidence for AT-Field being barrier between consciousness and unconscious: Evangelions exhibit an AT-Field to separate it from the outside (consciously perceived) world. When Third Impact occurs, AT-Fields are dissolved and Maya, Hyuga and Fuyutsuki's personal unconscious wishes were manifest, before they all explode into undifferentiated (i.e. non-personal) LCL (i.e. consciousness slowly deteriorates). Third Impact is the dissolution of consciousness into the unconscious, by the breakdown of the barrier between them. Notice how the characters were all forced to confront all the thoughts they have stashed away in the unconscious in both series and movie endings. So:

Consciousness (=Ego) | Unconscious;
| = AT Field

Also note that Shinji popping back up from the sea of LCL and saying goodbye to mother is an obvious example of a rebirth-myth (return to "sanity").

Originally posted on: 20-Apr-2007, 15:59 GMT

JFaulkner [ANF]
Embryo
Posts: 36
Joined: Dec 21, 2008

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby JFaulkner [ANF] » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:33 pm

Part 2.

Now why is Rei part of Shinji's anima - well we have Yui' s soul is Shinji's anima, but in this framework, this anima is incomplete. Rei is the missing part, and Rei resembles Yui and has the soul of Lilith (Red Cross Book - note that Jung also had a book called the "Red Book," whether this is of any relevance or not is another thing). Lilith is a generic life-source, from which we immediately see the resemblance to undifferentiated Libido, from which we see that Rei is a mixture of the conscious Yui and a generic unconscious part. This points to Rei being another mother-image, although representing contents which are slightly more conscious than the contents represented by Yui's soul, because of the conscious body. Also, having a generic unconscious part (or soul), Rei can synch with EVA-00 even if it has no resident soul (i.e. EVA-00 symbolizes an unconscious not designated to any particular person), and being part of Shinji's anima, she can synch with EVA-01 as well. Ramifications: EVA-00 going berserk is due to the influence of Yui in Rei through the generic unconscious (i.e. Shinji's unconscious), and Ritsuko thinking EVA-00 is after her is probably due to her guilt rather than EVA-00 aiming for her (unless the young Shinji saw something indecent or something concerning Ritsuko).*** Also, I think there is an argument for the case that since Rei has a generic unconscious part in Yui's body, she needs to align this generic unconscious part to Yui's consciousness and thus realize that she is part of Shinji's psyche - which she does eventually and "Becomes one" with Shinji to complete his psyche and return to sanity (a hieros gamos or "holy wedding") - so Shinji must get to know his unconscious and Rei (Shinji's unconscious) needs to get to know his consciousness; they meet in the middle to the delight of everyone (series ending).

As for the prominence of 3's (and even 4's) and the cross motif, I think I can explain these using this framework as well. Also, there's probably more fun and games explaining the other character and Eva actions using this framework. But I'll leave this for the future.

***[EDIT] Need here to explain why Shinji could synch with EVA-00. Possibility that Rei's soul (derived or of Lilith, with hints of Yui) is so strong that it has left an aura in EVA-00 for Shinji to synch with. This aura then starts to fade, such that Shinji's consciousness might become subsumed by the LCL (undifferentiated Libido) because the path to consciousness, as provided by the aura of Rei's soul, is lost. Psychological contamination occurs and EVA-00 goes berserk. This sounds convoluted, so I may think about EVA-00 having some sort of soul derived from Lillith or something in the future. This wouldn't change the other conclusions reached in this post.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Summary
Jungian framework used to explain some of the symbols in Evangelion. By doing so, the events in Evangelion can be related to the workings of the human psyche and hence our world and the phenomena of mental "illness". More broadly, it shows the dangers of chucking everything we don't like in our unconscious and not facing up to them, something which we can all fall into. What I've written here is not detailed and fully referenced, but just getting some ideas floating around in my head down.

I conjecture that what Anno really tried to show in this anime is what he went through in his mental breakdown, in symbolic form: e.g. famous Anno quote [my italics and bold lettering]:
"I tried to include everything of myself in Neon Genesis Evangelion -- myself, a broken man who could do nothing for four years.

A man who ran away for four years, one who was simply not dead.

Then one thought:

"You can't run away,"

came to me, and I restarted this production.

It is a production where my only thought was to burn my feelings into film.

....

That is because within me, the story is not yet finished."
The story is within him. Thus, it represents part of his psyche. It is his myth, which he has found and is living, just like Shinji (Anno's avatar) must find and live his myth (see Jung quote above and lyrics to theme song). I think that

Evangelion is the myth of Anno in anime form

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted on: 20-Apr-2007, 16:00 GMT

Tom Servo [ANF]
Adam
User avatar
Posts: 50
Joined: Oct 20, 2007

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Tom Servo [ANF] » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:33 pm

I've only read 'man in search of a soul' and 'on the nature of the psyche' by Jung along with what he wrote about UFOs, also with Reich's material on the side - which I suppose has some value to understanding Jung.

Thus, Jung conceptualized the unconscious as the original source of Libido and within it there is a store of undifferentiated (not of any form) Libido which can then differentiate and give rise to unconscious and conscious phenomena.
Unconscious gives rise to unconscious and conscious? I understood that as libido being a latent energy, for want of a better word, within nature which gives rise to the unconscious but only when that libido is cannibalised (for example as an analogue of the object of instinct) outside the natural gradient, as Jung calls it, that nature operates along - and then and only there is a differentiation and a throwing into contrast of the unconscious and conscious which allows us to examine it exterior (or rather interior) to ourselves.

This led Jung to conceptualize unconscious contents as similar to the "soul." Plato et al. saw the soul as "that which moves itself" - some sort of force of unknown origin.
That which has inherent motion or the platonic self-moved of the three states of being CAN NOT be subject to dissolution as it can not be separated from it's motive power which is itself - which is not a force of unknown origin, but we can only see/touch/feel with our senses the effects of it's cause in physical matter - which is how we come to know it at it's most gross level, or malkuth if you like (as opposed to the Moved, which requires anterior forces to be imparted to it, so it can be separated from it's source of movement hence subject to decomposition, i.e the physical body of man when the self-moved is removed) whereas it could be argued that the unconscious CAN be subject to decomposition at death if you see the brain as purely mechanical. I do not see where the idea of soul as the unconscious has it's logic, in Eva at least it seems the Soul encompasses all Mind, not simply the unconscious.

To me it seems Eva is much more related to the various theories of morphogenetics or morphic resonance (i.e. "the mind shapes the body") as expounded upon by Rupert Sheldrake rather than Carl Jung's theories about the body/mind connection. In fact the word morphogenetics is even mentioned in one of the earlier episodes!

The Evangelions represent the unconscious, LCL represents the Libido, the soul inside EVA-01 represents part of Shinji's anima, the soul inside EVA-02 represents Asuka's anima,
I can see the logic here.

Does Yui really embody Shinji's anima? Does Kyoko really embody Asuka's anima? It's more patent with Asuka as she seems to be caught between her animus of 'strong, confident girl' and her anima of 'suicidal, lonely girl' which her mother encapsulates perfectly, but Kyoko is still a person in the show - I don't believe it to be symbolic to the extent as you say - but it was enough to give me pause. It's harder to see with Shinji tho', you'll have to explain that (or maybe you have, I haven't read your second post yet) a bit more. Who knows about Rei, those waters are too murky...

Rei is part of Shinji's anima, Eva-00 has no resident soul and AT Field represents barrier between consciousness and unconscious.
I can't see the logic here, where does the "Rei is part of Shinji's anima" come from? Simply because Rei holds the same genetic information, to a degree, as Yui - she is still her own person. How does Rei embody Shinji's anima in the show? If Eva-00 has no resident soul then how can a AT Field be produced about Unit-00?

The AT Field in Eva is the barrier between Mind and the world/other Minds (remember what Kaworu says) - not as the barrier or mechanism of repression (if you're into Freud) between conscious and unconscious. It serves a dual purpose - 1, the border between Minds and 2, as the hands that shape LCL into the form of the vessel that the Mind temporarily inhabits, this is why in Eva "the mind can shape the body". In your reasoning LCL is libido, that would mean the physical body is composed of currents of libido, correct?

Thus LCL symbolizes undifferentiated Libido, which, as per above, resides in the unconscious (and thus, the Evangelion symbolizes the unconscious as a whole).
This sentance doesn't make any sense to me.

This is also why I am interested to see what Jung material Anno has read.
It's interesting to note that the magical circle in the dummyplug plant is also in one of Jung's works called something along the line of "symbols" (in which he apparently deconstructs this glyph into his model of the collective unconscious/plato's oversoul, unconscious, conscious) - but I haven't looked into that myself yet so I don't know how much validity that holds.

I'm going to stop here and I'll continue responding to the rest another day.

Originally posted on: 20-Apr-2007, 19:52 GMT

Reichu [ANF]
Angel
Angel
User avatar
Posts: 3651
Joined: Oct 19, 2007

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Reichu [ANF] » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:33 pm

EVA-00 not having a resident soul isn't a well-favored theory -- but there are maybe a dozen threads spanning here and EMF that cover that turf in excruciating detail.

Rei's soul is Lilith's, as reshaped by life in a Lilim-shaped vessel. Yui's soul is in EVA-01, and no-where else; there are no 'hints of Yui' in Rei's soul.

JFaulkner wrote:I'm slightly surprised by the silence since I would have thought this type of analysis would be right up the streets of some Eva-fans here. So any takers? Rubbish? Made some sense? Or what?
Honestly?

Unless I go and actually read some Jung first (a brief introduction will not suffice), your "framework" propositions are going to be an impenetrable wall of codified text, with the only discernible bits being anything independent of the "framework". Without first acquiring at least an abstract understanding of the concepts, the only things in your lengthy posts that are going to elicit response from me are anything questionable pertaining to the actual NGE narrative and mythos. And even then, it gets messy and confusing very fast -- e.g., you suggest that LCL = libido, and I immediately think about how "libido" in the show has no direct relationship with LCL.

The concept of interpreting NGE through a "framework" associated with a specific discipline or school of thought strikes me as being somewhat dodgy, considering NGE is an extremely eclectic entity. I'll just as soon interpret it eclectically. Reading up on Jung would probably give me some new perspectives to consider, but I don't think I'd be inclined to quite take it to your level...

Originally posted on: 21-Apr-2007, 03:26 GMT

Aletheia [ANF]
Embryo
Posts: 4
Joined: Jan 28, 2009

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Aletheia [ANF] » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:33 pm

JFaulkner wrote:The Evangelions represent the unconscious, LCL represents the Libido, the soul inside EVA-01 represents part of Shinji's anima, the soul inside EVA-02 represents Asuka's anima, Rei is part of Shinji's anima, Eva-00 has no resident soul and AT Field represents barrier between consciousness and unconscious.
Well, I can?t really agree with you here. First of all, the evangelions really do not remind me of Jung?s idea of unconsciousness. Evangelions in the movie represent something primal, brutal force and animal instincts. For me this looks much more like Freud?s idea of Id or his unconsciousness. Jung?s unconsciousness lacks most of these characteristics, mostly because it was partially constructed to contrast with that of Freud?s. Jung?s unconsciousness is more tranquil, reflective and symbolic than Freud?s and lacks many of the ?primal? characteristics so typical for EVA units in berserk. What is more, you have not mentioned the collective unconscious, a concept central for Jung?s doctrine, which is much more linked to the cultural and social side of human nature.
Secondly, I can?t see why EVA 02 represents Asuka?s anima, especially after you watch the events of EoE. In my opinion, Asuka?s problem lies elsewhere ? to use Jung?s terminology, Asuka?s personality is that of a conflict between her inherent nature and her Animus rather than her anima. Asuka desperately tries to express her independence, rational thinking and dominance over others, but to use Nietzshean terms - she lacks the ?will to power? to stay that way. This is why her need of independence turns into outbrakes of needless emotions and her need for dominance turns into needless agression. Asuka is IMHO much easier to describe using Adler?s or Nietzshe?s terms, but as long as Jung is concerned I strongly believe that Asuka is defined through her struggle with her animus, not her anima.
While I can see that the AT field can be the border consciousness and unconscious, I still think that it will be the border between Freudic consciousness and unconscious and not that of Jung for the reasons I already stated while discussing EVA units. I myself would rather state that the AT field represents the border between the subjective world and the objective world.

JFaulkner wrote:Thus LCL symbolizes undifferentiated Libido, which, as per above, resides in the unconscious (and thus, the Evangelion symbolizes the unconscious as a whole). Also, it has been referred to as the "soup of life" in Eva, and undifferentiated Libido is like the source of all our psychic activities ("life").
The similarities are indeed striking and give us something to think about. Still, I believe it would be much harder to defend this theory when we look at NGE from SEELE perspective. Why would SEELE want humanity to return of a state of pure libido? Furthermore according to SEELE the state of the ?Single Being? would be perfect, solid and stable one, while libido in its essence is dynamic, changing and opposing stagnation.

Overall I think that your interpretation has some sense in it, particularly your conclusions on the nature of the AT field, but I'm afraid that by omitting the central concepts of Jung?s philosophy such as the collective unconscious or the anima-animus duality, you de-Junganize it and make it more Freudic in essence.

Originally posted on: 21-Apr-2007, 10:12 GMT

Len [ANF]
Embryo
User avatar
Posts: 3
Joined: Dec 21, 2008

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Len [ANF] » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:34 pm

I believe this qualifies as a hyper over-analysis..
Hideaki made it on a whim, he wasn't a super genius, just incredibly random.


Originally posted on: 21-Apr-2007, 10:21 GMT

Aletheia [ANF]
Embryo
Posts: 4
Joined: Jan 28, 2009

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Aletheia [ANF] » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:34 pm

Len wrote:I believe this qualifies as a hyper over-analysis..
Hideaki made it on a whim, he wasn't a super genius, just incredibly random.
Ah, but what is over analysis?
The goal of artistic inspiration, and often scientific inspiration as well, is to find new conclusions, new ideas and new concepts in the works of other authors, authors that didn?t see these new ideas themselves. If we look at things only through the perspective of ?what the author wanted to say? we will never get to the essence of neither art nor science. Thinking this way one would have to consider the ?Last Supper? by Leonardo da Vinci or the ?Commentary to St.John?s gospel? by St.Thomas as ?over analyzing?.

Originally posted on: 21-Apr-2007, 10:30 GMT

Len [ANF]
Embryo
User avatar
Posts: 3
Joined: Dec 21, 2008

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Len [ANF] » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:34 pm

Its a term which means you spend way much time on something which usually ends up being either incorrect of irrelevent. Congratulations on over-analyzing the term over-analysis though.

Originally posted on: 21-Apr-2007, 10:31 GMT

Aletheia [ANF]
Embryo
Posts: 4
Joined: Jan 28, 2009

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Aletheia [ANF] » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:34 pm

Len wrote:Its a term which means you spend way much time on something which usually ends up being either incorrect of irrelevent. Congratulations on over-analyzing the term over-analysis though.
This definition would be correct only in discussions of "what the author wanted to say" matter, because only then we can speak of "correctness" - correctness as being coherent with the authors intentions. Such is the perspective of the theory of literature, but I?m afraid that nobody in this thread assumes such a perspective.
Instead it is best to view this from the perspective of science or art, where searching for new interpretations and new conclusions is more important than simply explaining ?what the author wanted to say?.
The conclusion is fairly simple, though maybe a bit unexpected: AnimeNation is not a lecture on the theory of literature.

Originally posted on: 21-Apr-2007, 10:42 GMT

Treize X [ANF]
Clockiel
Clockiel
User avatar
Posts: 411
Joined: Oct 19, 2007

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Treize X [ANF] » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:34 pm

I just thought I'd mention something to put this in perspective: you're overanalyzing seemingly random things based on a neurotic man's cartoon.

Might wanna take a step back and think about it.


Originally posted on: 21-Apr-2007, 14:58 GMT

JFaulkner [ANF]
Embryo
Posts: 36
Joined: Dec 21, 2008

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby JFaulkner [ANF] » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:34 pm

Firstly, many thanks for taking time to reply everyone.

Reply part 1.

Tom Servo: Your post so far has raised issues which require me to do more thinking, so please post the rest of your thoughts and I'll try and reply in more detail in the future, maybe in parts.

Aletheia:
Aletheia wrote:Well, I can?t really agree with you here. First of all, the evangelions really do not remind me of Jung?s idea of unconsciousness. Evangelions in the movie represent something primal, brutal force and animal instincts. For me this looks much more like Freud?s idea of Id or his unconsciousness. Jung?s unconsciousness lacks most of these characteristics, mostly because it was partially constructed to contrast with that of Freud?s. Jung?s unconsciousness is more tranquil, reflective and symbolic than Freud?s and lacks many of the ?primal? characteristics so typical for EVA units in berserk. What is more, you have not mentioned the collective unconscious, a concept central for Jung?s doctrine, which is much more linked to the cultural and social side of human nature.
I was reluctant to introduce the differentiation between personal and collective unconscious in this rough outline because I thought it would be confusing for those not familiar with Jung.

I agree Jung's conceptions are more symbolic than Freud's. However, I would argue that Jung's conception of the unconscious can be far from tranquil and reflective, such that is does not lack "primal" characteristics.

i) On Tranquility and reflectiveness.

Just for those unfamiliar with the personal/collective distinction, from Collected Works (CW) 6, PG485:
We can distinguish a personal unconscious, comprising all the acquisitions of personal life, everything forgotten, repressed, subliminally perceived, thought, felt. But, in addition to these personal unconscious contents, there are other contents which do not originate in personal acquisitions but in the inherited possibility of psychic functioning in general, i.e., in the inherited structure of the brain.
The basic dichotomy here is that contents in the collective unconscious are "innate" in the sense that we are born with them. Personal unconscious contents are "acquired" after we are born.

The definition of personal unconscious entails that it contains thoughts, feelings, emotions which we have subsequently repressed. This part corresponds more to Freud's conception of "unconscious." What this means is that Jung's unconscious is not always tranquil by virtue of the possibility of repressing emotions like anger, hate, etc. But what about the collective unconscious? It contains archetypes, which are, from CW9(i), PG42:

The concept of the archetype, which is an indispensable correlate of the idea of the collective unconscious, indicates the existence of definite forms in the pysche which seem to be present always and everywhere.
Now the interesting part is that Jung draws an analogy with archetypes and instinct, because the latter is, CW9(i), PG43-4:

impersonal, universally distributed, hereditary factors of a dynamic or motivating character, which very often fail so completely to reach consciousness .... there is good reason for supposing that the archetypes are the unconscious images of the instincts themselves
This shows that archetypes (when charged with enough psychic energy=Jung's Libido), can have a dynamic and motivating character. This shows that the collective unconscious is not just tranquil or reflective, it is not benign but can have a forceful character. This is also evidenced early on in Jung's word-association tests. Here, Jung measures response times from patients to words, and where a word hits upon a "feeling-toned complex", then they take longer to respond. As Jung says, CW(3), PG38:

The elements of psychic life, sensations, ideas, and feelings, are given to consciousness in the form of certain units
i.e. Feelings and sensations can impress themselves on consciousness from the unconscious and exert a strong effect. And as an example which directly shows that the unconscious is not tranquil according to Jung, CW(3), PG41, my bold and italics:

A situation threatening danger pushes aside the tranquil play of ideas and puts in their place a complex of other ideas with a very strong feeling-tone. The new complex than crowds everything else into the background. For the time being it is the most distinct because it totally inhibits all other ideas; it permits only those egocentric ideas to exist which fit its situation
This shows that the unconscious can have a "primal" effect in the sense of one loses rational thought, something analogous to instinct. Other examples of how the unconscious exert a strong effect are given in several case studies in Jung's books, such as CW(1), Chapter V, where a case of someone alleged to be "insane" was examined with respect to the unconscious forces which give rise to such behaviour, and in CW(5), which in large part focuses on the unconscious factors which gave rise to "schizophrenia" in the woman with the pseudonym Frank Miller. Also, CW(1), III, focuses on manic mood disorder - to quote, PG109:

A constitutional mood disorder characterized by melancholy and irritability has been known for some time
The following case studies show how this can be manifested in action, including a woman turning into an alcoholic because she could not face up to her past, which she has repressed. So again, this shows that Jung's idea of "unconscious" can be anything but tranquil and reflective.

Aletheia wrote:Secondly, I can?t see why EVA 02 represents Asuka?s anima, especially after you watch the events of EoE. In my opinion, Asuka?s problem lies elsewhere ? to use Jung?s terminology, Asuka?s personality is that of a conflict between her inherent nature and her Animus rather than her anima. Asuka desperately tries to express her independence, rational thinking and dominance over others, but to use Nietzshean terms - she lacks the ?will to power? to stay that way. This is why her need of independence turns into outbrakes of needless emotions and her need for dominance turns into needless agression. Asuka is IMHO much easier to describe using Adler?s or Nietzshe?s terms, but as long as Jung is concerned I strongly believe that Asuka is defined through her struggle with her animus, not her anima.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Animus rather than her anima" - the animus is just the same as the anima, except as manifested in a woman: The Psychology of C.G.Jung, Jolande Jacobi, PG115:

the 'soul-image', which in the man Jung calls the anima and in the woman, the animus
Furthermore, Jung sometimes doesn't even differentiate between anima and animus for man and woman, and just uses the generic german word seele for his conception of soul in both sexes - e.g. footnote to CW(6), PG467. So Asuka having a conflict with the animus means basically a conflict with her anima.

Also, you mention that Asuka was trying to gain independence - that I agree with, yet it is not just an independence and power over others, but independence and power over herself, i.e. her unconscious forces. This is precisely what Jungian psychoanalysis aims to do - to free ourselves from the overriding forces of the unconscious. I agree that maybe you can use Nietzsche's terms to describe this conflict, but the reason why I was reluctant to use Nietzsche is that he doesn't seem to believe in a conception of the "soul" - e.g. Nietzsche, Richard Schacht, PG141 onwards (concerning "things") describes how Nietzsche rejects notions of something being unitary, single, persisting, unconditioned, self-identical, self-contained, independently existing, an agent to which we can trace to and attribute a variety of effects - and that includes the notion of the soul. So I agree that although the specific case of Asuka trying to win independence may be described in terms of will to power, Nietzsche's work is not amenable to describing, e.g. Instrumentality and the idea of a "Single Being". Furthermore, using Nietzsche would not explain some of the symbols in EoE such as Rei sitting on top of Shinji naked, the souls of the Eva being each pilot's mother and so forth. Given that, IMHO, Asuka's fight for independence can be characterized by appeal to the Jungian conception of the unconscious, and can also characterize things like Instrumentality, then I think it is a better framework overall. I'm not overly familiar with Adler, so IMO, his psychology may be more appropriate than using Nietzsche (and Jung?).

Aletheia wrote:While I can see that the AT field can be the border consciousness and unconscious, I still think that it will be the border between Freudic consciousness and unconscious and not that of Jung for the reasons I already stated while discussing EVA units. I myself would rather state that the AT field represents the border between the subjective world and the objective world.
I've tried to counteract your reasoning and by doing so, have tried to show why the Jungian conception of consciousness/unconscious is still valid. Concerning your representation of the AT field being the border between subjective/objective, by that I take it you mean internal (thoughts, feelings etc.) and external reality (sun, ground, pavement etc.). That's interesting, but I don't think that's too far removed from my Jungian view, given that the conscious ego in Jung is the totality of what we perceive consciously, which includes sense perceptions of external reality. So perhaps we are on similar grounds here?

Originally posted on: 21-Apr-2007, 15:06 GMT

JFaulkner [ANF]
Embryo
Posts: 36
Joined: Dec 21, 2008

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby JFaulkner [ANF] » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:34 pm

Reply part 2.

Aletheia wrote:The similarities are indeed striking and give us something to think about. Still, I believe it would be much harder to defend this theory when we look at NGE from SEELE perspective. Why would SEELE want humanity to return of a state of pure libido? Furthermore according to SEELE the state of the ?Single Being? would be perfect, solid and stable one, while libido in its essence is dynamic, changing and opposing stagnation.
I need to think more about why SEELE wants humanity as a state of pure libido, but I don't think there was an indication that the "Single Being" is necessary an irreversible, stable state. From the RCB:

The objective of the Instrumentality Project was the artificial evolution of humankind into a "perfect single being". This single being means a life form which ends as a single individual, and is used to differentiate from "colony" -- a life form comprised of multiple individuals.
Sure, it is a state which ends as a single individual, yet nothing is said about whether one can evolve from this state back into different individuals - and in EoE, people were given the choice to come back as individuals, e.g. Yui:
Yui (voice):
Don't worry.
All living things have the ability to return to their original form
Also, there is nothing said about the "Single Being" being totally stagnant, it could be a dynamic equilibrium. The LCL which the "Single Being" seems to be composed of is a viscous substance which is like water, a dynamic substance which exerts pressure at all points.

Aletheia wrote:Overall I think that your interpretation has some sense in it, particularly your conclusions on the nature of the AT field, but I'm afraid that by omitting the central concepts of Jung?s philosophy such as the collective unconscious or the anima-animus duality, you de-Junganize it and make it more Freudic in essence.
I've clarified my ideas with respect to the personal/collective unconscious dichotomy and have tried to show that there isn't an anima-animus duality in a Jungian framework, so I think that I have not gone against the main essence of Jung, which is, crudely, about integrating conscious and unconscious contents together, the latter of which need not have an overriding sexual or power motive, together to form an emergent product which can be called the "Self."

Originally posted on: 21-Apr-2007, 15:07 GMT

JFaulkner [ANF]
Embryo
Posts: 36
Joined: Dec 21, 2008

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby JFaulkner [ANF] » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:34 pm

Reply part 3.

Len
Len wrote:I believe this qualifies as a hyper over-analysis..
Hideaki made it on a whim, he wasn't a super genius, just incredibly random.
Len wrote:Its a term which means you spend way much time on something which usually ends up being either incorrect of irrelevent.
As I said, I invite people to look at the reasons I wrote for the validity of using a Jungian framework in this thread http://animenation.net/forums/showthread.php?t=197167, and this includes arguments for why Anno didn't do things totally randomly.

Something is only incorrect if you can show it is using an argument. Here, you provide no arguments. My arguments are not refuted in any way. Thus, my arguments are not incorrect. If you wish to show it is, then you're going to have to look at my arguments and show that it is. Furthermore, you have provided no argument whatsoever that Anno made it on a whim, isn't a "super-genius" (which you haven't defined properly) or that Eva is "incredibly random" (again, not described properly). In the last analysis, you haven't shown anything. How do I know that what you're typing is not random itself? Image

Treize X
Treize X wrote:just thought I'd mention something to put this in perspective: you're overanalyzing seemingly random things based on a neurotic man's cartoon.

Might wanna take a step back and think about it.
Again, where's the argument that I overanalyzed? To show that, you look at my arguments and then try to show that what they conclude has no bearing on the show. I've proposed many similarities, so to just state "it's overanalyzing" without an argument is totally meaningless. It doesn't make your proposition true in any way. You might wanna take a step back and offer some arguments instead of sound-bites.

Reichu
Reichu wrote:Honestly?

Unless I go and actually read some Jung first (a brief introduction will not suffice), your "framework" propositions are going to be an impenetrable wall of codified text, with the only discernible bits being anything independent of the "framework". Without first acquiring at least an abstract understanding of the concepts, the only things in your lengthy posts that are going to elicit response from me are anything questionable pertaining to the actual NGE narrative and mythos. And even then, it gets messy and confusing very fast -- e.g., you suggest that LCL = libido, and I immediately think about how "libido" in the show has no direct relationship with LCL.
Well, the aim of the brief introduction was to give sufficient understanding of the abstract concepts. I wrote it with that in mind, and avoided introducing jargon such as archetypes, collective unconscious and so forth. I think somebody totally unfamiliar with Jung can understand what I've written, e.g. one can draw from one's own experiences and understand that we have a conscious perception of our surroundings and an unconscious part where we hide memories etc. So I don't think it's quite an impenetrable wall. However, if you really want a longer introduction, I recommend "The Psychology of C.G. Jung" by Jolande Jacobi, as that book is quite short and was endorsed by Jung. I wouldn't recommend the Wikipaedia entries because I've read them all and they are quite simple, and contained mistakes, some of which I cleaned up on.

Also, you may immediately think "libido" is unrelated, but I think most people will be able to see the multiple similarities I pointed out in the two paragraphs of text I highlighted. I've also outlined roughly what libido means and you know what LCL means, so you might be able to see the relation.

Reichu wrote:The concept of interpreting NGE through a "framework" associated with a specific discipline or school of thought strikes me as being somewhat dodgy, considering NGE is an extremely eclectic entity. I'll just as soon interpret it eclectically. Reading up on Jung would probably give me some new perspectives to consider, but I don't think I'd be inclined to quite take it to your level...
Well, I tried to give reasons for the validity of doing so in this thread here http://animenation.net/forums/showthread.php?t=197167
At the end of the day, I don't think Jung on its own will explain everything, but it seems to offer a framework which allows a fair part to have greater meaning. And if it falls short in some areas, then you're right, we just have to either use another framework or take it as random. Yet my level is at the moment, still quite shallow, because I haven't shown properly the full impact of the similarities between Jung and Eva, and therefore the full potential of the new perspectives Jung can give.

Originally posted on: 21-Apr-2007, 15:30 GMT

JFaulkner [ANF]
Embryo
Posts: 36
Joined: Dec 21, 2008

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby JFaulkner [ANF] » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:34 pm

Reply part 4.

Modification of Framework
JFaulkner wrote:I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Animus rather than her anima" - the animus is just the same as the anima, except as manifested in a woman:

......

Furthermore, Jung sometimes doesn't even differentiate between anima and animus for man and woman, and just uses the generic german word seele for his conception of soul in both sexes - e.g. footnote to CW(6), PG467. So Asuka having a conflict with the animus means basically a conflict with her anima.
I can actually see a problem here, because if the "soul" in EVA-02 is equivalent to Asuka's animus (=Jung's idea of soul in a woman), then it should be a masculine figure, which it isn't (it's her mum's soul). Therefore, I would modify the original outline such that Yui's soul and Kyouko's soul actually do not correspond directly to the Jungian conception of soul, but rather to the mother images. Although it is true that the soul can be symbolized by the mother only in a masculine psyche, the mother images (which arises due to the mother archetype, see description of archetype given in my Reply part 1) can be manifested in the unconscious of both sexes. In case anyone thinks I'm just using ad hoc BS, CW9(i) PG87-100 deals at length with the manifestations of the mother archetype in women. To get some idea of what the mother image is, Jacobi writes in The Psychology of C.G. Jung, PG46:
The primordial image of the mother, the 'Great Mother' with all her paradoxical attributes .... The differentiation of the ego from the 'mother' is at the beginning of every 'coming to consciousness'. And coming to consciousness (Bewusstwerdung) means building a world by differentiating. To create awareness, to formulate ideas-this is the father principle of the logos, which perpetually struggles to free itself from the primordial darkness of the maternal womb, from the realm of the unconscious.
This sounds like quackery, and I know a few people IRL who would be strongly against this, but these concepts are heuristic more than metaphysical. Basically, what Jacobi is saying is that through Jung's studies, he found that a bunch of his patients showed mother images in their unconscious (e.g. via word-association tests, analysis of dreams and fantasies), and also found evidence for the prominence of the mother image throughout history in religion, literature, art, culture etc. So he postulated that the mother image is "universal" and present in everyone, i.e. part of the collective unconscious, i.e. is innate (we are born with this capacity to produce mother images). What Jacobi means by "differentiating" is the process whereby we develop conscious thought such as rational thinking, logic etc. from when we were babies (when for the most part, we are unconscious). Rational thinking, logic etc. is identified with the 'father' (i.e. men), because Jung, based on his studies, thought that men are more rational thinkers. More broadly, differentiating applies to the process of developing consciousness from a state of overpowering unconsciousness. Also note the theme of the struggle for control of the unconscious I mentioned earlier in my Reply part 2, when I touched upon Asuka's fight for independence over herself.

Thus, the propositions:

the soul inside EVA-01 represents part of Shinji's anima, the soul inside EVA-02 represents Asuka's anima,

become:

the soul inside EVA-01 (Yui's soul) represents the mother image in Shinji's unconscious, the soul inside EVA-02 (Kyouko's soul) represents the mother image in Asuka's unconscious,

Everything I said about the mother image in my rough introduction still holds, and since the mother image can symbolize the anima (soul in a man) for Shinji, what I said about Rei being part of Shinji's anima still makes sense (although I think I need to make that particular part much clearer).

For anyone more familiar with Jung, I would say that Asuka having a crush on Kaji is like Asuka projecting her animus onto him.

Originally posted on: 22-Apr-2007, 12:21 GMT

Tom Servo [ANF]
Adam
User avatar
Posts: 50
Joined: Oct 20, 2007

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Tom Servo [ANF] » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:34 pm

JFaulkner wrote:Rei is a mixture of the conscious Yui and a generic unconscious part.
... what happened to Lilith?

JFaulkner wrote:This points to Rei being another mother-image, although representing contents which are slightly more conscious than the contents represented by Yui's soul, because of the conscious body. Also, having a generic unconscious part (or soul), Rei can synch with EVA-00 even if it has no resident soul (i.e. EVA-00 symbolizes an unconscious not designated to any particular person), and being part of Shinji's anima, she can synch with EVA-01 as well.
Always thought of the way that Rei operates Eva-00 being akin to how Kaworu operates Eva-02 - but I have no evidence of that at all, it's just a hunch.

The often cited evidence for Rei 1 being in Eva-00 has a flaw tho', that being that the next scene with Rei is never taken into account.

Shinji says he smells Rei in the plug of Eva-00, he then sees the impression of Rei.
Rei says she smells seashells on the seashore, I mean Shinji, in the plug of Eva-01, I can only assume that she would then have seen the impression of Shinji (and not Yui).
Does that means Shinji's soul is in Eva-01? Nope! But the impression of Shinji is certainly in there - same goes for Rei.
Ever had someone make an impression on you? Think about that in terms of the talky-talky in NGE about 'the you existing in other's minds.'

To sum up what you’re saying there: Rei is the more conscious part of Shinji's unconscious whereas Yui is the unconscious unconscious of Shinji. So Shinji's unconscious unconscious can work through the more conscious unconscious to attack Ritsuko, but! I think you're forgetting about when Eva-00 tries to do the same with Rei herself - that means Yui wants Rei dead too, so the unconscious unconscious is trying to eliminate the more conscious unconscious.
Where does Rei's simulation body reaching out for Misato come into that? Are you going to say that was actually Shinji's unconscious (who is Yui) reaching out through Rei to Misato, Misato herself being a type of mother for Shinji - see how entwined you're going to get in your Belief System here when you try to apply it outside a very narrow band of scenes in NGE?
No wonder Shinji is so messed up with all that going on in his head!

The more of this I read the more I think you haven't actually thought this through at all.

JFaulkner wrote:Shinji must get to know his unconscious and Rei (Shinji's unconscious) needs to get to know his consciousness; they meet in the middle to the delight of everyone (series ending).
It's explicitly said in the series ending that Shinji was reconciling the differences between himself and the other Shinjis in other's minds. At the end of the series he frees himself from the bondage of what other people think - I don't see anything in the TV series ending to suggest a chemical wedding between Shinji's conscious and unconscious (which you say is represented by Rei).

JFaulkner wrote:As for the prominence of 3's (and even 4's) and the cross motif, I think I can explain these using this framework as well.
Meself once had a thought that the crucifixes might be something to do with what Jung thought about them being representative of the four quadrants of the mind - when I tried to apply that it didn't fit across the board.

Originally posted on: 22-Apr-2007, 17:48 GMT

Aletheia [ANF]
Embryo
Posts: 4
Joined: Jan 28, 2009

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Aletheia [ANF] » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:34 pm

JFaulkner wrote:Concerning your representation of the AT field being the border between subjective/objective, by that I take it you mean internal (thoughts, feelings etc.) and external reality (sun, ground, pavement etc.). That's interesting, but I don't think that's too far removed from my Jungian view, given that the conscious ego in Jung is the totality of what we perceive consciously, which includes sense perceptions of external reality. So perhaps we are on similar grounds here?
Most likely we are, it will become much more obvious when I translate my idea of subjective/objective opposition using terminology typical for continental philosophy to a Same/Other opposition. There, now it is much more clear (I hope) that I meant exactly what you described as internal and external reality.

JFaulkner wrote:I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Animus rather than her anima" - the animus is just the same as the anima, except as manifested in a woman.
Also, you mention that Asuka was trying to gain independence - that I agree with, yet it is not just an independence and power over others, but independence and power over herself, i.e. her unconscious forces.
There is a subtle, yet important difference between the animus and the anima according to Jung. The anima is the unconscious feminine component of a man and contains the “feminine traits” such as submissiveness, need for relatedness, emotionality and gentleness. The animus is the unconscious masculine component of a woman and contains the “masculine traits” such as dominance, need for independence, rationality and aggressiveness. Jung was confident that this is the only possible combination, in other words that there are no women who have dominant masculine traits as their ego and dominant feminine traits in their unconsciousness.
Personally I, as well as many current day psychoanalysis theoreticians, believe that Jung’s anima/animus theory is particularly inept and does not adequately reflect reality. Still, since we are looking at NGE from Jungian perspective, I decided to stress the fact that Asuka strongly tries to underline her “masculine” traits. Therefore Jung would probably have to interpret it a sort of “overintegration” with her animus, probably as a result of trauma and negative experiences concerning her mother, Asuka chose to reject her more “feminine” traits which she associates with her mother and “become” her own animus figure. This is the best Jungian interpretation of Asuka I can come up with, but still I personally find it too far fetched.
I would rather describe her through a "will to power" Nitezshean perspective, an Adler's "need for superiority" or even Hegel's "master and slave dialectic".

Originally posted on: 23-Apr-2007, 08:46 GMT

JFaulkner [ANF]
Embryo
Posts: 36
Joined: Dec 21, 2008

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby JFaulkner [ANF] » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:34 pm

Reply part 5
Tom Servo wrote:I've only read 'man in search of a soul' and 'on the nature of the psyche' by Jung along with what he wrote about UFOs, also with Reich's material on the side - which I suppose has some value to understanding Jung.
I understand Jung did write something about UFOs being a modern myth, but I haven't got round to reading that yet.

Tom Servo wrote:Unconscious gives rise to unconscious and conscious? I understood that as libido being a latent energy, for want of a better word, within nature which gives rise to the unconscious but only when that libido is cannibalised (for example as an analogue of the object of instinct) outside the natural gradient, as Jung calls it, that nature operates along - and then and only there is a differentiation and a throwing into contrast of the unconscious and conscious which allows us to examine it exterior (or rather interior) to ourselves.
Here's what I wrote again:
Thus, Jung conceptualized the unconscious as the original source of Libido and within it there is a store of undifferentiated (not of any form) Libido which can then differentiate and give rise to unconscious and conscious phenomena.
I was trying to avoid using "collective unconscious" and "archetype" here, which simplified what I was trying to say. So here is clarification: First, here's Jung's definition of Libido (CW6, PG455-6):
By libido I mean psychic energy. Psychic energy is the intensity of a psychic process,
I reproduce Jung's description of the archetypes here, from CW9(i), PG42:
The concept of the archetype, which is an indispensable correlate of the idea of the collective unconscious, indicates the existence of definite forms in the pysche which seem to be present always and everywhere.
Furthermore, from CW9(i), PG42 as well:
the content of the collective unconscious is made up essentially of archetypes
In case anyone missed it, here is a recap of the distinction between the personal and the collective unconscious , CW6, PG485:
We can distinguish a personal unconscious, comprising all the acquisitions of personal life, everything forgotten, repressed, subliminally perceived, thought, felt. But, in addition to these personal unconscious contents, there are other contents which do not originate in personal acquisitions but in the inherited possibility of psychic functioning in general, i.e., in the inherited structure of the brain.
The basic dichotomy here is that contents in the collective unconscious are "innate" in the sense that we are born with them. Personal unconscious contents are "acquired" after we are born.

So to clarify what I said originally. The Libido is psychic energy and does not have any differentiated form - as Jacobi writes in The Psychology of CG Jung (hereafter, TPCGJ), PG52, libido "can be determined only by psychic manifestations and effects". It is only when an archetype is charged with enough libido that unconscious processes are formed according to the particular archetype, and this can give rise to different effects, such as images in dreams and so forth. Also, libido forms the basis of conscious processes as well. So that takes care of the "undifferentiated (not of any form) Libido which can then differentiate and give rise to unconscious and conscious phenomena" part.

Now when we are born, with Jung, we are born with the innate collective unconscious. We have no or very little consciousness and no (acquired) personal unconscious. Thus, all the libido is manifested in the collective unconscious. This is what I meant by "Jung conceptualized the unconscious as the original source of Libido" - OK, that wasn't the best way to put it, but the idea is that the unconscious is where the libido started from at birth. Afterwards, as a child grows, conscious ideas start to form and the libido undergoes a progressive movement as Jacobi, TPCGJ, PG57 writes:
The flow of energy has direction, and accordingly we distinguish a PROGRESSIVE and a REGRESSIVE MOVEMENT, in temporal succession. The progressive movement is a process that takes its direction from consciousness and consists in a continuous and undisturbed 'adaptation to the conscious demands of life and the differentiation of attitude and function type which this necessitates'.
In short, in a progressive movement, libido flows from the unconscious to the conscious. As a child grows, libido must flow from the unconscious to fill conscious ideas, rather than appear by magic, because Jung postulated that psychic energy is conserved, e.g. Jacobi, TPCGJ, PG55:
From the law of conservation of energy, it follows that energy can be displaced, that it can flow by a natural gradient from one member of a pair of opposites to the other. This means, for example, that the energy charge of the unconscious increases in proportion as that of consciousness diminishes.
So hopefully, this clarifies what I've written.

Tom Servo wrote:That which has inherent motion or the platonic self-moved of the three states of being CAN NOT be subject to dissolution as it can not be separated from it's motive power which is itself - which is not a force of unknown origin, but we can only see/touch/feel with our senses the effects of it's cause in physical matter - which is how we come to know it at it's most gross level, or malkuth if you like (as opposed to the Moved, which requires anterior forces to be imparted to it, so it can be separated from it's source of movement hence subject to decomposition, i.e the physical body of man when the self-moved is removed) whereas it could be argued that the unconscious CAN be subject to decomposition at death if you see the brain as purely mechanical. I do not see where the idea of soul as the unconscious has it's logic, in Eva at least it seems the Soul encompasses all Mind, not simply the unconscious.
I only brought up the analogy with Plato's soul to highlight that the unconscious is similar in that it seems to exhibit a sort of independence from our control. It wasn't a literal comparison, and in any case, it has been repeated many times by Jung that his conception of soul is not immortal and more an empirical concept rather than a metaphysical one, e.g. CW9(i), PG26, my italics and bold:
Anima means soul and should designate something wonderful and immortal. Yet this was not always so. We should not forget that this kind of soul is a dogmatic conception whose purpose is to pin down and capture something uncannily alive and active
i.e. the analogy with Plato's soul is just due to both Plato's and Jung's conception having an element of being "uncannily alive and active." Also in CW9(i), PG27:
The anima is not the soul in the dogmatic sense, not an anima rationalis, which is a philosophical conception, but a natural archetype
I believe you have switched into a Platonic framework; I'm working with a Jungian one and using Jung's conception, the soul is an unconscious content. There's absolutely no dispute about this, since Jung mentions it is an archetype in the quote above, and archetypes are in the collective unconscious. Now, you might want to analyze Eva under a Platonic framework - personally, I've read a few books on Plato and don't believe his conception of "Ideas" and "immortal soul" captures the tumultuous happenings in Eva.

Tom Servo wrote:To me it seems Eva is much more related to the various theories of morphogenetics or morphic resonance (i.e. "the mind shapes the body") as expounded upon by Rupert Sheldrake rather than Carl Jung's theories about the body/mind connection. In fact the word morphogenetics is even mentioned in one of the earlier episodes!
I haven't read about Sheldrake's theories before, but if you believe it has more relevance than Jung's theories, be my guest and start a thread of your own showing how his theories relate to Eva. It seems like the regulars here aren't particularly interested in "external frameworks," despite nobody being able to argue against the reasons I put forth for the validity of using an "external" Jungian one (http://www.animenation.net/forums/sh...&postcount=59).

Tom Servo wrote:Does Yui really embody Shinji's anima? Does Kyoko really embody Asuka's anima? It's more patent with Asuka as she seems to be caught between her animus of 'strong, confident girl' and her anima of 'suicidal, lonely girl' which her mother encapsulates perfectly, but Kyoko is still a person in the show - I don't believe it to be symbolic to the extent as you say - but it was enough to give me pause. It's harder to see with Shinji tho', you'll have to explain that (or maybe you have, I haven't read your second post yet) a bit more. Who knows about Rei, those waters are too murky...
Firstly, I wasn't claiming the physical Yui or Kyouko were animas, but that Yui and Kyouko's souls were the animas.

Secondly, as for Aletheia, I'm not quite sure where you get this animus/anima duality from. As I replied to Aletheia, the soul in a man is called "anima" by Jung and the soul in a woman is called "animus." e.g. CW6, PG469:
If, therefore, we speak of the anima of a man, we must logically speak of the animus of a woman, if we are to give the soul of a woman its right name.


Originally posted on: 22-Apr-2007, 22:32 GMT

JFaulkner [ANF]
Embryo
Posts: 36
Joined: Dec 21, 2008

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby JFaulkner [ANF] » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:34 pm

Reply part 6

Thirdly, I've since spotted a mistake in my arguments in that the animus is represented by a masculine figure, so I have restated some of my propositions in Reply part 4. (earlier post), with some extra supporting text. I now think Yui's soul and Kyouko's soul represents "mother images" for Shinji and Asuka respectively, because IMHO, it's clear to see that a) they are their mothers, and b) they reside in the Evas, which needs LCL to operate. Since I have given evidence that LCL equates to undifferentiated libido residing in the collective unconscious (see the multiple comparisons between Rei's description of the world of LCL and Jung's conception of, what I will now clarify, the collective unconscious) and the Evas house the LCL, under this Jungian framework, the Evas can be seen as the unconscious. Thus b) above implies that each pilot's mother resides in the collective unconscious, and this allows one to think of Yui and Kyouko's souls as mother images (which emanate from the collective unconscious).

Tom Servo wrote:I can't see the logic here, where does the "Rei is part of Shinji's anima" come from? Simply because Rei holds the same genetic information, to a degree, as Yui - she is still her own person. How does Rei embody Shinji's anima in the show? If Eva-00 has no resident soul then how can a AT Field be produced about Unit-00?
I've mentioned that "Lilith is a generic life-source, from which we immediately see the resemblance to undifferentiated Libido" - now why did I say that? One reason was the quote I gave for Jung, describing the collective unconscious of undifferentiated libido (CW9(i), PG21-2):
It is the world of water, where all life floats in suspension; where .... the soul of everything living, begins
The collective unconscious is where all souls begin. Similarly, Lilith is a source of life and hence could be seen as where all souls begin as well. The logic here is that Lilith can be seen as representing a collective unconscious which has no body to manifest in, and thus, the soul of Lilith is an unconscious archetype. When it manifests in Yui's body, then it forms an entity with the body of Yui (which is given consciously to the outside world) and a collective unconscious. Now, importantly, Rei's body is a clone and hence, Rei was not born like everyone else, and hence did not have the chance to live through childhood and develop conscious thoughts etc. to as full a degree as a normal person. Thus, I conceptualized Rei as predominantly unconscious, but with a small conscious part which resembles Shinji's mother. This means in this framework, I could take her as predominantly a mother image for Shinji. Since the soul in a masculine psyche can be symbolized by the mother, then I can take Rei as "part of" Shinji's anima. I didn't put forward the idea of Rei being "fully" Shinji's anima, because there's that small conscious part by virtue of Rei's body.

I need to think more about why EVA-00 can manifest an AT Field, but I conjecture that since Rei is more unconscious than other people, the soul inside her is able to "penetrate" through her conscious body more easily and thus act as the Eva's resident soul as well. This particular part is very rough at the moment, so I need to look into this more.

Tom Servo wrote:The AT Field in Eva is the barrier between Mind and the world/other Minds (remember what Kaworu says) - not as the barrier or mechanism of repression (if you're into Freud) between conscious and unconscious. It serves a dual purpose - 1, the border between Minds and 2, as the hands that shape LCL into the form of the vessel that the Mind temporarily inhabits, this is why in Eva "the mind can shape the body". In your reasoning LCL is libido, that would mean the physical body is composed of currents of libido, correct?
1. I've already shown that the collective unconscious, through that quote which showed multiple similarities with Rei's speech in EoE, is where everyone is indivisible and furthermore, represents the "world" - i.e. all minds are merged collectively (there's even a clue in the name ?collective unconscious?). The AT Field is the border between one's mind (conscious mind/ego) and the collective unconscious (other minds/world).
2. The collective unconscious exerts a force on the AT Field and therefore shapes the way the conscious Mind thinks (the Mind?s ?vessel?). The Mind (conscious ego) shapes the body because the way you consciously perceive yourself shapes the way you are.

Tom Servo wrote:This sentance doesn't make any sense to me.
Here is what I said:
Thus LCL symbolizes undifferentiated Libido, which, as per above, resides in the unconscious (and thus, the Evangelion symbolizes the unconscious as a whole).
I also said "LCL is a fluid, dynamic, undifferentiated liquid-like substance, just like Libido in its undifferentiated state." That takes care of "Thus LCL symbolizes undifferentiated Libido." Undifferentiated libido originates in the collective unconscious as I have shown above and furthermore, I pointed this out in the rough intro to Jung. Thus, undiff. libido in collective unconscious is represented by LCL in Eva, i.e. Eva represents the collective unconscious of the pilot.

Tom Servo wrote:It's interesting to note that the magical circle in the dummyplug plant is also in one of Jung's works called something along the line of "symbols" (in which he apparently deconstructs this glyph into his model of the collective unconscious/plato's oversoul, unconscious, conscious) - but I haven't looked into that myself yet so I don't know how much validity that holds.
I've seen that picture and I haven't come across it in any book by Jung yet. It looks like a variant of his psychological type scheme (4 typological functions) overlaid onto a map representing the collective unconscious (middle), then the personal unconscious, and then the conscious ego.

Tom Servo wrote:... what happened to Lilith?
Lilith is the "generic unconscious part" - I said Lilith, as a generic life-source, resembled undifferentiated libido (which resides in the collective unconscious). This was pointed out in the same sentence. I have given more details on this above.

Tom Servo wrote:Always thought of the way that Rei operates Eva-00 being akin to how Kaworu operates Eva-02 - but I have no evidence of that at all, it's just a hunch.

The often cited evidence for Rei 1 being in Eva-00 has a flaw tho', that being that the next scene with Rei is never taken into account.

Shinji says he smells Rei in the plug of Eva-00, he then sees the impression of Rei.
Rei says she smells seashells on the seashore, I mean Shinji, in the plug of Eva-01, I can only assume that she would then have seen the impression of Shinji (and not Yui).
Does that means Shinji's soul is in Eva-01? Nope! But the impression of Shinji is certainly in there - same goes for Rei.
Ever had someone make an impression on you? Think about that in terms of the talky-talky in NGE about 'the you existing in other's minds.'
Good point, I'll leave this to the "literalists" here.

Tom Servo wrote:To sum up what you?re saying there: Rei is the more conscious part of Shinji's unconscious whereas Yui is the unconscious unconscious of Shinji. So Shinji's unconscious unconscious can work through the more conscious unconscious to attack Ritsuko, but! I think you're forgetting about when Eva-00 tries to do the same with Rei herself - that means Yui wants Rei dead too, so the unconscious unconscious is trying to eliminate the more conscious unconscious.
To clarify, I think Rei and Yui's soul are both part of Shinji's unconscious by virtue of being mother images. Rei is more conscious (under Jung, there is a gradient from conscious to unconscious) than Yui's soul by virtue of having a body, albeit a cloned one. As for why EVA-00 wanting to attack Rei as well, I have to think more about that. The propositions "Rei is part of Shinji's anima" and "Eva-00 has no resident soul" are the two for which I need to work on most.

Tom Servo wrote:Where does Rei's simulation body reaching out for Misato come into that? Are you going to say that was actually Shinji's unconscious (who is Yui) reaching out through Rei to Misato, Misato herself being a type of mother for Shinji - see how entwined you're going to get in your Belief System here when you try to apply it outside a very narrow band of scenes in NGE?
No wonder Shinji is so messed up with all that going on in his head!
Firstly, Misato is not a mother image, because she does not look like Shinji's mother. I'm not sure what scene you are referring to: which episode?

Originally posted on: 22-Apr-2007, 22:33 GMT

JFaulkner [ANF]
Embryo
Posts: 36
Joined: Dec 21, 2008

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby JFaulkner [ANF] » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:35 pm

Reply part 7

Tom Servo wrote:The more of this I read the more I think you haven't actually thought this through at all.
Well, the more I read, the more I think you haven't thought through your criticisms properly e.g. you thought Asuka had an animus and an anima, which doesn't make any sense if you’ve read any Jung; you asked "what happened to Lilith" and I already gave the answer in the same sentence. Also, you've glossed over the multiple similarities I pointed out between the "Single Being" (EoE) and Jung's conception of the collective unconscious (I’d like to see another person come up with 5 similarities within such a small block of paragraph for another piece of text) and the arguments I gave for why Maya, Hyuga and Fuyutsuki's dreams being manifest in EoE shows that the collapse of AT Fields represents a collapse of consciousness. This leads me to believe you're spending more time trying to rubbish my arguments, than trying to understand what I'm trying to say, which inevitably leaves you thinking I haven't thought this through - despite not giving me the chance to respond to your criticisms (which I have now, and for the most part, your criticisms don't seem to hold too much water).

Tom Servo wrote:It's explicitly said in the series ending that Shinji was reconciling the differences between himself and the other Shinjis in other's minds. At the end of the series he frees himself from the bondage of what other people think - I don't see anything in the TV series ending to suggest a chemical wedding between Shinji's conscious and unconscious (which you say is represented by Rei).
Here's what I said:
which she does eventually and "Becomes one" with Shinji to complete his psyche and return to sanity (a hieros gamos or "holy wedding") - so Shinji must get to know his unconscious and Rei (Shinji's unconscious) needs to get to know his consciousness; they meet in the middle to the delight of everyone (series ending).
When I said "series ending" I was only referring to "they meet in the middle to the delight of everyone." The "hieros gamos" refers to EoE, when Rei was sitting on top of Shinji - I thought that would be an obvious spot if you knew what “hieros gamos” meant. As for Rei trying to become more conscious, I need to elaborate more on this, but I refer to e.g. Ep. 14 where Rei is clearly trying to make herself more consciously aware of herself and her surroundings in her "poem", Ep. 23 where Rei said "This is my mind, which I wish to be unified with Ikari-kun." and the EoE scene. There have been strong arguments that the EoE ending has the same main messages as the TV series, so I conjecture the TV series could be seen in this way too, especially given clues in Ep. 14 and 23 and I think elsewhere. Like I said, I will need to work on it.

Meself once had a thought that the crucifixes might be something to do with what Jung thought about them being representative of the four quadrants of the mind - when I tried to apply that it didn't fit across the board.
Jung did an entire analysis on Jesus Christ (CW9(ii)), so I think there might be something interesting. In addition, for reasons I will not detail now, not least because of time constraints, he thought "4" is more complete than "3." Incidentally, Ramiel has the exact shape of one of Jung's constructions, which is the "Quaternio" (CW9(ii),PG231), whether the "quat" can be related to 4 is another matter (and yes I do acknowledge this could have been pure coincidence, or even if it is a homage to Jung, doesn't necessarily have any further meaning).

Originally posted on: 22-Apr-2007, 22:37 GMT


Return to “AnimeNation Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests