Skip to content

“Hierosgamos Motif”

April 4, 2017

“The archetypally patterned ‘hierosgamos motif’ of a projected supreme symbolic ‘bride’ and ‘groom’ mythic-bodied opposite shadow of ‘Anima’ in a potential differentiated and re-embodied original whole man; and ‘Animus’ in a potential differentiated and re-embodied original whole woman.”

“We are in great danger.  Psyche is the great danger.  We ought to know something about it but we know nothing about ‘it’” –  Jung

Since it is only through “individual men and women working together” that “culture” is created, integrating the archetypal mythic-body shadow of psyche’s projected undifferentiated supreme symbolic inner opposite “bride” and “groom” shadow in a dreaming-bodies creation mythos story of an unfolding potential differentiated and re-embodied original whole man and woman is a “therapy of culture” and imaginal basis of “our” “constitutional democracy.”

“An archetype always stands for some typical event.  As we have seen, there is in the coniunctio a union of two figures, one representing the daytime principle, i.e., lucid consciousness, the other a nocturnal light, the unconscious.  Becaue the latter cannot be seen directly, it is always projected; for, unlike the shadow, it does not belong to the ego but is collective.  For this reason it is felt to be something alien to us, and we suspect it of belonging to the particular person with whom we have emotional ties.  In addition a man’s unconscious has a feminine character; it hides in the feminine side of him which he naturally does not see in himself but in the woman who fascinates him.  That is probably why the soul (anima) is feminine.  If, therfore, man and woman are merged in some kind of unconscious identity, he will take over the traits of her animus and she the traits of his anima.  Althought neither anima nor animus can be constellated without the intervention of the conscious personality, this does not mean that the resultant situation is nothing but a presonal relationship and a prersonal entanglement.  The personal side of it is a fact, but not the main fact.  The main fact is the subjective experience of the situation―in othe words, it is a mistake to believe that one’s personal dealings with one’s partner play the most important part.  Quite the reverse: the most important part falls tothe man’s dealings with the anima and the woman’s dealings with the animus.  Nor does the coniunctio take palce with the personal partner; it is a royal game played out between the active, masculine side of the woman (the animus) and the receptive     feminine side of the man (the anima).  Although the two figures are always tempting the ego to identify itself with them, a real understanding even on the personal level is possible only if the identification is refused.  Non-identification demands considerable     moral effort.  Moreover it is only legitimate when not used as a pretext for avoiding the necessary degree of personal understanding.  On the other hand, if we approach this task with psychological views that are too personalistic, we fail to do justice to the fact that we are dealing with an archetype which is anything but personal.  It is, on the contrary, an a priori so so universal in scope and incidence that it often seems advisable to speak less of my anima or my animus and more of the anima and the animus.  As archetypes, these figures are semi-collective and impersonal quantities, so that when we identify ourselves with them and fondly imagine that we are then most truly ourselves, we are in fact most estranged from ourselves and most like the average type of Homo sapiens.  The personal protagonists in the royal game should constantly bear in mind that at bottom it represents  the ‘trans-subjective’ union of archetypal figures, and it should never be forgotten that it is a symbolical relationship whose goal is complete individuation….The right way, like the wrong way, must be paid for…it is in either case an opus contra nuturam.  It goes against nature to commit incest (a discriminating reflective symbolic re-union of split-off opposites within ones self. ps), and it goes against nature not to yield to ardent desire. And yet it is nature that prompts such an attitude in us, because of the kinship libido (desire for transcendent unity – ps)….‘Nature rejoices in nature, nature conquers  nature, nuture rules  over nature.’ (A-ps) man’s (and a woman’s-ps) instincts are not all harmoniously arranged, they are perpetually jostling each other out of the way.  The ancients were (wise enough-ps) to see this struggle not as a chaotic muddle but as aspiring to some higher order.” (Ibid., 260-262)

“Thus the encounter with anima and animus means conflict and brings us up against the hard dilemma in which nature herself has placed us.  Whichever course one takes, nature will be mortified and must suffer, even to the death; for the merely natural man  (and woman-ps) must die in part during his (and her-ps)  own lifetime.  The Christian symbol of the crucifix is therefore a prototype  and an ‘eternal truth.’…Nobody who finds himself (or herself-ps) on the road to wholeness can escape that characteristic suspension which is the meaning of the crucifixion.  For he (and she-ps) will infallibly run into things that thwart and ‘cross’ him (and her): first, the thing he (and she-ps) has no wish to be (the shadow); second, the thing he (and she-ps) is not (the ‘other,’ the individual reality of the ‘You’); and third, his (and her-ps) psychic non-ego (the collective unconscious).  This being at cross purposes with ourselves is suggested by the crossed branchs held by the ‘king’ and ‘queen’ who are themselves man’s cross in the form of the anima and woman’s cross in the form of the animus. The meeting with the collective unconscious is a fatality of which the natural man (and woman-ps) has no inkling until ‘it’ ‘overtakes’ him (and her-ps).  As Faust says: ‘You are conscious only of the single urge / O may you never know the other!” (Ibid., 262)

Making the archetypal libidinal hermaphroditic shadow of psyche’s counter-crossing mythic dreaming-body projections of anima and animus conscious is the basis of Jung’s dream analysis as a vocational creative call to awaken to ones differentiated and re-embodied whole self and re-applied ethos of whole judgment to “outer situation of geopoliticized relationship(s).”  The only thing “killed” in the process is ego’s inculturated, one-sided literal defensive intellectual ignorance about the archetypal autonomy of psyche’s paradoxical shadow of difference and soulful relatedness in wholeness that cannot be “eliminated” from the equation of “human relationship(s).”

The intrapsychic process of making the archetypal autonomous shadow of anima and animus projections conscious in a differentiated and re-embodied whole man and woman underlies the whole psychological opus of dream analysisThe same archetypally patterned, paradoxically informing, intrapsychic process motifs of symbolic marriage, dissolution and rebirthing that underlie Jung’s dream analysis also underlie cross-cultural initiating pre-Christian initiating rites of passage and shamanic, Tantric, alchemic et al gnostic traditions of healing reconciliation and transformation into a differentiated and re-embodied original whole man and woman.  Those same archetypally patterned motifs of undifferentiated anima and animus projections of unboundaried mythic totality into one-sided culturally gendered claims of superiority are also the etiologic basis responsible for the geopoliticized history of false flag gender violent claims of “becoming and independent State of “Full Spectrum Dominance” from “day one” .


; certain religious opera, since notable parallels exist between ecclesiastical symbolism and alchemy (that embody the archetypally patterned motifs of an exemplary symbolic marriage, dissolution, and rebirthing synthesis into a centering sacred ritual dreaming mythic-body imagery of birthright in “wholeness,” paradoxically responsible in the first place for their gendered hermeneutic application to dreamed forward “modern” “dream analysis” of the “transference phenomena”; as well as a Western, one-sided, split-off Christian psychiatric, pernicious “numerically coded” “final solution” “treatment” paradigm that has “forgotten,” if it ever knew, the “mythic-body hermaphroditic libidinal shadow” of psyche’s in those motifs projected into whole autoimmune system(s) in pandemic revolting “symptoms” called forth by that double-binding, blaming the victim paradigm in the first place-ps).


archetypally patterned  foundational mythic-body basis of dreamed forward .  In psychotherapy…(the archetypally patterned comparative ritual motifs of projected numinmous emotional enthralling symbolic marriage, dissolution, purification, discriminating re-embodiment of soul-loss, and new birth et al are-ps) recognized as the (intra)psychic process par excellence, because (they-ps) typify the (paradoxically informing-ps) content of the transference (phenomena as the creation mythos of a man’s and a woman’s original wholeness, which is not assumed conscious by virtue of birthright or a blame of “love” which calls forth psyche’s unknown mythic “parental/governing” opposite shadow” in oneself, which is not the sole-property of rational ego-ps).


The supreme aim of the “opus psychologicum” is conscious realization, and the first step is to make oneself conscious of contents that have hitherto been projected.  This endeavour gradually leads to knowledge of ones partner and to self-knowledge, and so to the distinction between what one really is and what is projected into one, or what one imagines oneself to be. Meanwhile, one is so taken up with one’s own efforts that one is heardly conscious of the extent to which ‘nature’ acts not only as a driving-force but as a helper—in other words, how much instinct insists that the higher level of consciosuness be attained.  This urge to a higher and more comprehensie consciousness fosters civilizaion and culture, but must fall short of the goal unless man (and woman-ps) voluntarily places himself (and herself-ps) in its service….There must be will as well as ability on man’s (and woman’s-ps) part, for unless both are present the ‘urge’ remains at the level of merely natural symbolism and produces nothing but a perversion of the instinct for wholeness which, if it is to fulfil its purpose, needs all parts of the whole, including those that are projected into a ‘You.’  Instinct seeks them there, in order to re-create that royal pair which every human being has in his (and her-ps) wholeness, i.e., that bi-sexual First Man (and Woman-ps) who has ‘no need of anything but himself (and herself-ps).’ (Ibid., 262-263)



“THE MERCURIAL FOUNTAIN” – “We are the metals’ first nature and only source / The highest tincture of the Art is made through us / No fountain and no water has my like / I make both rich and poor both whole and sick / For healthful can I be and poisonous….” 203.  Jung,  The Practice of Psychotherapy: Essays on the Psychology of the Transference and Other Subjects, 203.  Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

“KING AND QUEEN” – “The arcanum artis or coniunctio Solis et Lunae as supreme union of hostile opposites.  “King and Queen, bridegroom and bride, approach one another for the purpose of betrothal or marriage. The incest element appears in the brother-sister relationship of Appolo and Diana.  The pair of them stand respectively on sun and moon, thus indicating their solar and lunar nature in accordance with the astrological assumption of the importance of the sun’s position for man and the moon’s for women.  The meeting is somewhat distant at first, as the court clothes suggest.  The two give each other their left hands, and this can hardly be unintentional since it is contrary to custom.  The gesture points to a closely guarded secret, to the ‘left-hand (sinister) side is the dark, the unconscious side.  The left is inauspicious and awkward; also it is the side of the heart, from which comes not only love but all the evil thoughts connected with it, the moral contradictions in human nature that are expressed most clearly in our affective life….” Jung,  The Practice of Psychotherapy: Essays on the Psychology of the Transference and Other Subjects, 211.  Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

“THE NAKED TRUTH” – “The chaste disguises have fallen away.  Man and woman confront one another in unabashed naturalness.  Sol  says, ‘O Luna, let me by thy husband,’ and Luna ‘O Sol, I must submit to thee….'” Jung,  The Practice of Psychotherapy: Essays on the Psychology of the Transference and Other Subjects, 236.  Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: