集体潜意识
集体潜意识
指人在公共场合中表现出来的人格方面，其目的在于表现对自己有利的良好形象以便得到社会认可。人格面 具能够使人在社会中获益，但过分人格面具必然要牺牲人格结构中的其他部分，从而对心理健康造成危害。
评价
对集体潜意识的发现使荣格成为20世纪最卓越的学者之一，荣格也由此成为一个有争议的人物。荣格在世界 各国的世俗、宗教信仰甚至神秘事件中发现了某些共同的跨文化现象。例如，不同国家和地区的神话传说中，常 常出现主题类似或者情节相似的故事，或者是有相似的人物形象。在为来访者作精神分析时，不同来访者的经验 和梦中也时常出现与神话不谋而合的象征。甚至某些精神分裂来访者的幻想或者观念也可以在神话中找到对应。 而这一部分的人类本性，荣格称之为“集体潜意识”。集体潜意识为荣格首创，是荣格最独特的发现，是荣格理 论中最为新颖的部分，也是最深奥费解和引起最大争论的一个概念。
集体潜意识
荣格分析心理学术语
01 概念
03 原型 05Βιβλιοθήκη 目录02 潜意识 04 评价
集体潜意识，又译作“集体无意识”，是荣格分析心理学术语。指人类祖先进化过程中，集体经验心灵底层 的精神沉积物，处于人类精神的最低层，为人类所普遍拥有。在个体一生中从未被意识到，经由遗传获得来。由 全部本能及其相关的原型组成。本能体现精神的动力方面，原型体现本能的意义，是本能在人精神中的存在形式， 决定人的行为的未来倾向和可能性，两者协调一致。具有先验性、普遍性、自主性、自律性、动力性和目的性等， 是人类精神中最重要和最有影响的部分，对个体的思想行为和创造力起制约作用。虽处于潜意识的最低层，但无 时不在寻求表现，若其内容未被意识同化，则会通过宗教、神话、艺术、梦幻和象征等表现出来。
原型
原型（Archetype、Prototype）是集体潜意识中形象的总汇。它是一种本原的模型，其他各种存在都根据 这种原型而成形。它深深的埋在心灵之中，因此当它们不能在意识中表现时，就会在梦、幻想、幻觉和神经症中 以原型和象征的形式表现出来。
心理学人格理论
心理学人格理论人格是指一个人在行为、情感和思维方面的稳定个体差异。
心理学人格理论旨在解释和预测个体的行为和心理过程，并为人格的测量和评估提供依据。
本文将介绍几种重要的心理学人格理论，包括弗洛伊德的精神分析理论、荣格的集体潜意识理论以及大五人格模型。
一、弗洛伊德的精神分析理论弗洛伊德是心理学人格理论的先驱之一，他的精神分析理论对后来的人格理论研究产生了深远影响。
根据弗洛伊德的理论，人格的形成主要受到个体的无意识冲突和童年经验的影响。
他将人格分为三个结构：本我、自我和超我。
本我代表个体的原始冲动和欲望，自我是对现实世界的认识和适应，超我则代表个体内化的道德和伦理标准。
弗洛伊德的理论为心理治疗提供了理论基础，尤其是心理分析和解梦。
二、荣格的集体潜意识理论荣格是心理学人格理论的重要代表人物之一，他提出了集体潜意识的概念。
集体潜意识是指个体共享的潜在心理结构，包括人类共有的象征、符号和神话等。
荣格认为，个体的人格发展不仅受到个体经验的影响，还受到集体潜意识的塑造。
他将人格分为个人潜意识和集体潜意识两个层面，认为个体在实现自身全面发展的过程中需要与集体潜意识进行平衡和对话。
三、大五人格模型大五人格模型是现代心理学研究中被广泛应用的人格理论之一。
该模型将人格特质划分为五个维度：神经质、外向性、开放性、宜人性和尽责性。
神经质指个体情绪稳定性和焦虑水平，外向性指个体社交性和外向倾向，开放性指个体对新鲜事物的接受程度，宜人性指个体友善和合作倾向，尽责性指个体责任感和自律性。
大五人格模型的优点在于简洁、全面和可测量性，被广泛应用于人格测量和组织行为研究领域。
综上所述，心理学人格理论是研究人类个体差异的重要领域。
通过不同的理论视角，我们可以更好地理解和解释个体的行为、情感和思维。
弗洛伊德的精神分析理论揭示了个体的无意识和童年经验对人格的影响，荣格的集体潜意识理论强调了集体文化和象征对个体的塑造作用，大五人格模型则提供了一种全面、简洁和可测量的人格测量方法。
荣格 集体潜意识的概念
The Concept of the Collective Unconscious CARL JUNGCarl G. Jung (1875-1961) was a Swiss psychologist whose principles have been found to be applicable to nearly all academic disciplines from mythology to religion to quantum physics, and to nearly all aspects of modern life. In the following selection, Jung discusses his most well-known (and controversial) concept, the collective uncon-scious, that aspect of the unconscious mind which manifests inherited, universal themes which run through all human life. The contents of the collective unconscious are archetypes, primordial images that reflect basic patterns or common to us all, and which have existed universally since the dawn of time.PROBABLY NONE OF MY empirical concepts has met with so much misunderstanding as the idea of the collective unconscious. In what followsI shall try to give (1) a definition of the concept,(2) a description of what it means for psychology,(3) an explanation of the method of proof, and(4) an example.1. DefinitionThe collective unconscious is a part of the psyche which can be negatively distinguished from a personal unconscious by the fact that it does not, like the latter, owe its existence to personal experi-ence and consequently is not a personal acquisition. While the personal unconscious is made up essentially of contents which have at one time been conscious but which have disappeared from consciousness through having been forgotten or repressed, the contents of the collective uncon-scious have never been in consciousness, and therefore have never been individually acquired, but owe their existence exclusively to heredity. Whereas the personal unconscious consists for the most part of complexes, the content of the collective unconscious is made up essentially of archetypes.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 psyche which seem to be present always and everywhere. Mythological research calls them “motifs”; in the psychology of primitives they correspond to Levy-Bruhl’s concept of “representations collectives,” and in the field of comparative religion they have been defined by Hubert and Mauss as “categories of the imagina-tion.” Adolf Bastian long ago called them “el-ementary” or “primordial thoughts.” From these references it should be clear enough that my idea of the archetype—literally a pre-existent form—does not stand alone but is something that is recognized and named in other fields of knowl-edge.My thesis, then, is as follows: In addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and which we believe to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal unconscious as an appendix), there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents.2. The Psychological Meaning of theCollective UnconsciousMedical psychology, growing as it did out of professional practice, insists on the personal nature of the psyche. By this I mean the views of Freud and Adler. It is a psychology of the person, and its aetiological or causal factors are regarded almost wholly as personal in nature. Nonetheless, even this psychology is based on certain general biological99100Understanding Dreamsfactors, for instance on the sexual instinct or on the urge for self-assertion, which are by no means merely personal peculiarities. It is forced to do this because it lays claim to being an explanatory science. Neither of these views would deny the existence of a priori instincts common to man and animals alike, or that they have a significant influ-ence on personal psychology. Yet instincts are impersonal, universally distributed, hereditary factors of a dynamic or motivating character, which very often fail so completely to reach consciousness that modern psychotherapy is faced with the task of helping the patient to become conscious of them. Moreover, the instincts are not vague and indefinite by nature, but are specifically formed motive forces which, long before there is any consciousness, and in spite of any degree of consciousness later on, pursue their inherent goals. Consequently they form very close analogies to the archetypes, so close, in fact, that there is good reason for supposing that the archetypes are the unconscious images of the instincts themselves, in other words, that they are patterns of instinctual behaviour.The hypothesis of the collective unconscious is, therefore, no more daring than to assume there are instincts. One admits readily that human activity is influenced to a high degree by instincts, quite apart from the rational motivations of the con-scious mind. So if the assertion is made that our imagination, perception, and thinking are likewise influenced by in-born and universally present formal elements, it seems to me that a normally functioning intelligence can discover in this idea just as much or just as little mysticism as in the theory of instincts. Although this reproach of mysticism has frequently been leveled at my concept, I must emphasize yet again that the concept of the collective unconscious is neither a speculative nor a philosophical but an empirical matter. The question is simply this: are there or are there not uncon-scious, universal forms of this kind? If they exist, then there is a region of the psyche which one can call the collective unconscious. It is true that the diagnosis of the collective unconscious is not always an easy task. It is not sufficient to point out the often obviously archetypal nature of uncon-scious products, for these can just as well be derived from acquisitions through language and education. Cryptomnesia should also be ruled out, which it is almost impossible to do in certain cases. In spite of all these difficulties, there remain enough individual instances showing the autoch-thonous revival of mythological motifs to put the matter beyond any reasonable doubt. But if such an unconscious exists at all, psychological explana-tion must take account of it and submit certain alleged personal aetiologies to sharper criticism.What I mean can perhaps best be made clear by a concrete example. You have probably read Freud’s discussion1 of a certain picture by Leonardo da Vinci: St. Anne with the Virgin Mary and the Christ-child. Freud interprets this remark-able picture in terms of the fact that Leonardo himself had two mothers. This causality is per-sonal. We shall not linger over the fact that this picture is far from unique, nor over the minor inaccuracy that St. Anne happens to be the grand-mother of Christ and not, as required by Freud’s interpretation, the mother, but shall simply point out that interwoven with the apparently personal psychology there is an impersonal motif well known to us from other fields. This is the motif of the dual mother, an archetype to be found in many variants in the field of mythology and comparative religion and forming the basis of numerous “representations collectives.” I might mention, for instance, the motif of the dual descent, that is, descent from human and divine parents, as in the case of Heracles, who received immortality through being unwittingly adopted by Hera. What was a myth in Greece was actually a ritual in Egypt: Pharaoh was both human and divine by nature. In the birth chambers of the Egyptian temples Pharaoh’s second, divine conception and birth is depicted on the walls; he is “twice-born.”It is an idea that underlies all rebirth mysteries, Christianity included. Christ himself is “twice-born”: through his baptism in the Jordan he was regenerated and reborn from water and spirit. Consequently, in the Roman liturgy the font is designated the “uterus ecclesiae,” and, as you can read in the Roman missal, it is called this even today, in the “benediction of the font” on Holy Saturday before Easter. Further, according to an early Christian-Gnostic idea, the spirit which appeared in the form of a dove was interpreted as Sophia-Sapientia—Wisdom and the Mother of101Christ. Thanks to this motif of the dual birth, children today, instead of having good and evil fairies who magically “adopt” them at birth with blessings or curses, are given sponsors—a “god-father” and a “godmother.”The idea of a second birth is found at all times and in all places. In the earliest beginnings of medicine it was a magical means of healing; in many religions it is the central mystical experience; it is the key idea in medieval, occult philosophy, and, last but not least, it is an infantile fantasy occurring in numberless children, large and small, who believe that their parents are not their real parents but merely foster-parents to whom they were handed over. Benvenuto Cellini also had this idea, as he himself relates in his autobiography.Now it is absolutely out of the question that all the individuals who believe in a dual descent have in reality always had two mothers, or con-versely that those few who shared Leonardo’s fate have infected the rest of humanity with their complex. Rather, one cannot avoid the assumption that the universal occurrence of the dual-birth motif together with the fantasy of the two mothers answers an omnipresent human need which is reflected in these motifs. If Leonardo da Vinci did in fact portray his two mothers in St. Anne and Mary—which I doubt—he nonetheless was only expressing something which countless millions of people before and after him have believed. The vulture symbol (which Freud also discusses in the work mentioned) makes this view all the more plausible. With some justification he quotes as the source of the symbol the Hieroglyphica of Horapollo, a book much in use in Leonardo’s time. There you read that vultures are female only and symbolize the mother. They conceive through the wind (pneuma). This word took on the meaning of “spirit” chiefly under the influence of Christian-ity. Even in the account of the miracle at Pentecost the pneuma still has the double meaning of wind and spirit. This fact, in my opinion, points without doubt to Mary, who, a virgin by nature, conceived through the pneuma, like a vulture. Furthermore, according to Horapollo, the vulture also symbol-izes Athene, who sprang, unbegotten, directly from the head of Zeus, was a virgin, and knew only spiritual motherhood. All this is really an allusion to Mary and the rebirth motif. There is not a shadow of evidence that Leonardo meant anything else by his picture. Even if it is correct to assume that he identified himself with the Christ-child, he was in all probability representing the mythological dual-mother motif and by no means his own personal prehistory. And what about all the other artists who painted the same theme? Surely not all of them had two mothers?Let us now transpose Leonardo’s case to the field of the neuroses, and assume that a patient with a mother complex is suffering from the delusion that the cause of his neurosis lies in his having really had two mothers. The personal interpretation would have to admit that he is right—and yet it would be quite wrong. For in reality the cause of his neurosis would lie in the reactivation of the dual-mother archetype, quite regardless of whether he had one mother or two mothers, because, as we have seen, this archetype functions individually and historically without any reference to the relatively rare occurrence of dual motherhood.In such a case, it is of course tempting to presuppose so simple and personal a cause, yet the hypothesis is not only inexact but totally false. It is admittedly difficult to understand how a dual-mother motif—unknown to a physician trained only in medicine—could have so great a determin-ing power as to produce the effect of a traumatic condition. But if we consider the tremendous powers that lie hidden in the mythological and religious sphere in man, the aetiological significance of the archetype appears less fantastic. In numer-ous cases of neurosis the cause of the disturbance lies in the very fact that the psychic life of the patient lacks the co-operation of these motive forces. Nevertheless a purely personalistic psy-chology, by reducing everything to personal causes, tries its level best to deny the existence of arche-typal motifs and even seeks to destroy them by personal analysis. I consider this a rather dangerous procedure which cannot be justified medically. Today you can judge better than you could twenty years ago the nature of the forces involved. Can we not see how a whole nation is reviving an archaic symbol, yes, even archaic religious forms, and how this mass emotion is influencing and revolutionizing the life of the individual in a catastrophic manner? The man of the past is aliveCarl Jung102Understanding Dreamsin us today to a degree undreamt of before the war, and in the last analysis what is the fate of great nations but a summation of the psychic changes in individuals?So far as a neurosis is really only a private affair, having its roots exclusively in personal causes, archetypes play no role at all. But if it is a question of a general incompatibility or an other-wise injurious condition productive of neuroses in relatively large numbers of individuals, then we must assume the presence of constellated arche-types. Since neuroses are in most cases not just private concerns, but social phenomena, we must assume that archetypes are constellated in these cases too. The archetype corresponding to the situation is activated, and as a result those explosive and dangerous forces hidden in the archetype come into action, frequently with unpredictable consequences. There is no lunacy people under the domination of an archetype will not fall a prey to. If thirty years ago anyone had dared to predict that our psychological development was tending towards a revival of the medieval persecutions of the Jews, that Europe would again tremble before the Roman fasces and the tramp of legions, that people would once more give the Roman salute, as two thousand years ago, and that instead of the Christian Cross an archaic swastika would lure onward millions of warriors ready for death—why, that man would have been hooted at as a mystical fool. And today? Surprising as it may seem, all this absurdity is a horrible reality. Private life, private aetiologies, and private neuroses have become almost a fiction in the world of today. The man of the past who lived in a world of archaic “representations collectives” has risen again into very visible and painfully real life, and this not only in a few unbalanced individuals but in many millions of people.There are as many archetypes as there are typical situations in life. Endless repetition has engraved these experiences into our psychic constitution, not in the form of images filled with content, but at first only as forms without content, representing merely the possibility of a certain type of perception and action. When a situation occurs which corresponds to a given archetype, that archetype becomes activated and a compulsiveness appears, which, like an instinctual drive, gains its way against all reason and will, or else produces a conflict of pathological dimensions, that is to say, a neurosis.3. Method of ProofWe must now turn to the question of how the existence of archetypes can be proved. Since archetypes are supposed to produce certain psychic forms, we must discuss how and where one can get hold of the material demonstrating these forms. The main source, then, is dreams, which have the advantage of being involuntary, spontaneous products of the unconscious psyche and are therefore pure products of nature not falsified by any conscious purpose. By questioning the individual one can ascertain which of the motifs appearing in the dream are known to him. From those which are unknown to him we must naturally exclude all motifs which might be known to him, as for instance—to revert to the case of Leonardo—the vulture symbol. We are not sure whether Leonardo took this symbol from Horapollo or not, although it would have been perfectly possible for an educated person of that time, because in those days artists were distin-guished for their wide knowledge of the humani-ties. Therefore, although the bird motif is an archetype par excellence, its existence in Leonardo’s fantasy would still prove nothing. Consequently, we must look for motifs which could not possibly be known to the dreamer and yet behave functionally in his dream in such a manner as to coincide with the functioning of the archetype known from historical sources.Another source for the material we need is to he found in “active imagination.” By this I mean a sequence of fantasies produced by deliberate concentration. I have found that the existence of unrealized, unconscious fantasies increases the frequency and intensity of dreams, and that when these fantasies are made conscious the dreams change their character and become weaker and less frequent. From this I have drawn the conclusion that dreams often contain fantasies which “want”to become conscious. The sources of dreams are often repressed instincts which have a natural tendency to influence the conscious mind. In cases of this sort, the patient is simply given the task of contemplating any one fragment of fantasy that103seems significant to him—a chance idea, perhaps, or something he has become conscious of in a dream—until its context becomes visible, that is to say, the relevant associative material in which it is embedded. It is not a question of the “free association” recommended by Freud for the purpose of dream-analysis, but of elaborating the fantasy by observing the further fantasy material that adds itself to the fragment in a natural manner.This is not the place to enter upon a technical discussion of the method. Suffice it to say that the resultant sequence of fantasies relieves the uncon-scious and produces material rich in archetypal images and associations. Obviously, this is a method that can only be used in certain carefully selected cases. The method is not entirely without danger, because it may carry the patient too far away from reality. A warning against thoughtless application is therefore in place.Finally, very interesting sources of archetypal material are to be found in the delusions of paranoiacs, the fantasies observed in trance-states, and the dreams of early childhood, from the third to the fifth year. Such material is available in profusion, but it is valueless unless one can adduce convincing mythological parallels. It does not, of course, suffice simply to connect a dream about a snake with the mythological occurrence of snakes, for who is to guarantee that the functional meaning of the snake in the dream is the same as in the mythological setting? In order to draw a valid parallel, it is necessary to know the functional meaning of the individual symbol, and then to find out whether the apparently parallel mythological symbol has a similar context and therefore the same functional meaning. Establishing such facts not only requires lengthy and wearisome re-searches, but is also an ungrateful subject for demonstration. As the symbols must not be torn out of their context, one has to launch forth into exhaustive descriptions, personal as well as symbological, and this is practically impossible in the framework of a lecture. I have repeatedly tried it at the risk of sending one half of my audience to sleep.4. An ExampleI am choosing as an example a case which, though already published, I use again because its brevity makes it peculiarly suitable for illustration. Moreover, I can add certain remarks which were omitted in the previous publication.2About 1906 I came across a very curious delusion in a paranoid schizophrenic who had been interned for many years. The patient had suffered since his youth and was incurable. He had been educated at a State school and been em-ployed as a clerk in an office. He had no special gifts, and I myself knew nothing of mythology or archaeology in those days, so the situation was not in any way suspect. One day I found the patient standing at the window, wagging his head and blinking into the sun. He told me to do the same, for then I would see something very interesting. When I asked him what he saw, he was astonished that I could see nothing, and said: “Surely you see the sun’s penis—when I move my head to and fro, it moves too, and that is where the wind comes from.” Naturally I did not under-stand this strange idea in the least, but I made a note of it. Then about four years later, during my mythological studies, I came upon a book by the late Albrecht Dieterich,3 the well-known philologist, which threw light on this fantasy. The work, published in 1910, deals with a Greek papyrus in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. Dieterich believed he had discovered a Mithraic ritual in one part of the text. The text is undoubtedly a religious prescrip-tion for carrying out certain incantations in which Mithras is named. It comes from the Alexandrian school of mysticism and shows affinities with certain passages in the Leiden papyri and the Corpus Hermeticum. In Dieterich’s text we read the following directions:Draw breath from the rays, draw in three times as strongly as you can and you will feelyourself raised up and walking towards theheight, and you will seem to be in the middleof the aerial region. . . . The path of the visiblegods will appear through the disc of the sun,who is God my father. Likewise the so-calledtube, the origin of the ministering wind. Foryou will see hanging down from the disc ofthe sun something that looks like a tube. Andtowards the regions westward it is as thoughthere were an infinite east wind. But if theother wind should prevail towards the regionsof the east, you will in like manner see thevision veering in that directions.4Carl Jung104Understanding DreamsIt is obviously the author’s intention to enable the reader to experience the vision which he had, or which at least he believes in. The reader is to be initiated into the inner religious experience either of the author, or—what seems more likely—of one of those mystic communities of which Philo Judaeus gives contemporary accounts. The fire- or sun-god here invoked is a figure which has close historical parallels, for instance with the Christ-figure of the Apocalypse. It is therefore a “representation collective,” as are also the ritual actions described, such as the imitating of animal noises, etc. The vision is embedded in a religious context of a distinctly ecstatic nature and describes a kind of initiation into mystic experience of the Deity.Our patient was about ten years older than I. In his megalomania, he thought he was God and Christ in one person. His attitude towards me was patronizing; he liked me probably because I was the only person with any sympathy for his abstruse ideas. His delusions were mainly religious, and when he invited me to blink into the sun like he did and waggle my head he obviously wanted to let me share his vision. He played the role of the mystic sage and I was the neophyte. He felt he was the sun-god himself, creating the wind by wagging his head to and fro. The ritual transformation into the Deity is attested by Apuleius in the Isis myster-ies, and moreover in the form of a Helios apo-theosis. The meaning of the “ministering wind” is probably the same as the procreative pneuma, which streams from the sun-god into the soul and fructifies it. The association of sun and wind frequently occurs in ancient symbolism.It must now be shown that this is not a purely chance coincidence of two isolated cases. We must therefore show that the idea of a wind-tube connected with God or the sun exists inde-pendently of these two testimonies and that it occurs at other times and in other places. Now there are, as a matter of fact, medieval paintings that depict the fructification of Mary with a tube or hose-pipe coming down from the throne of God and passing into her body, and we can see the dove or the Christ-child flying down it. The dove represents the fructifying agent, the wind of the Holy Ghost.Now it is quite out of the question that the patient could have had any knowledge whatever of a Greek papyrus published four years later, and it is in the highest degree unlikely that his vision had anything to do with the rare medieval representa-tions of the Conception, even if through some incredibly improbable chance he had ever seen a copy of such a painting. The patient was certified in his early twenties. He had never traveled. And there is no such picture in the public art gallery in Zurich, his native town.I mention this case not in order to prove that the vision is an archetype but only to show you my method of procedure in the simplest possible form. If we had only such cases, the task of investigation would be relatively easy, but in reality the proof is much more complicated. First of all, certain symbols have to be isolated clearly enough to be recognizable as typical phenomena, not just matters of chance. This is done by examining a series of dreams, say a few hundred, for typical figures, and by observing their development in the series. The same method can be applied to the products of active imagination. In this way it is possible to establish certain continuities or modula-tions of one and the same figure. You can select any figure which gives the impression of being an archetype by its behaviour in the series of dreams or visions. If the material at one’s disposal has been well observed and is sufficiently ample, one can discover interesting facts about the variations undergone by a single type. Not only the type itself but its variants too can be substantiated by evi-dence from comparative mythology and ethnol-ogy. I have described the method of investigation elsewhere5 and have also furnished the necessary case material.NOTES1.Sigmund Freud, Leonardo da Vinci and a Memory of His Childhood, sec. IV.2.Wandlungen and Symbole der Libido (orig. 1912). [Cf. the revised edition, Symbols of Transfor-mation, pars. 149ff., 223.]3.Eine Mithrasliturgie.4.Ibid., pp 6 ff.5.Psychology and Alchemy, Part II.。
集体潜意识
荣格突出心理结构的整体性，提出“集体潜意识”等概念。
他也认为人格结构由三个层次组成：意识（自我）、个人潜意识（情结）和集体潜意识（原型），这和弗洛伊德的提法有所不同。
个人潜意识“个人潜意识”是人格结构的第二层，作用要比意识大。
它包括一切被遗忘的记忆、知觉和被压抑的经验，以及梦和幻想等。
荣格认为个人无意识的内容是情结。
情结往往具有情绪色彩，是一组一组被压抑的心理内容聚集在一起而形成的无意识丛，如恋父情结、批评情结、权力情结等。
个体无意识是一个容器，蕴含和容纳着所有与意识的个体化机能不相一致的心灵活动和种种曾经一时是意识经验，不过由于各种各样的原因受到压抑或遭到忽视的内容，如令人痛苦的思想、悬而未决的问题、人际间冲突和道德焦虑等等。
还有一些经验，它们与人们不甚相干或显得无足轻重，由于本身强度太弱，当人们经历它们时达不到意识层，或者不能留驻在意识之中，因而都被贮藏在个体无意识里。
所有这些构成了个人无意识的内容，当需要时，这些内容通常会很容易地到达意识层面。
集体潜意识“集体潜意识”是人格结构最底层的无意识，包括祖先在内的世世代代的活动方式和经验库存在人脑中的遗传痕迹。
集体无意识和个人无意识的区别在于：它不是被遗忘的部分，而是我们一直都意识不到的东西。
荣格曾用岛打了个比方，露出水面的那些小岛是人能感知到的意识；由于潮来潮去而显露出来的水面下的地面部分，就是个人无意识；而岛的最底层是作为基地的海床，就是我们的集体潜意识。
原型编辑本段回目录原型是集体潜意识中形象的总汇。
荣格亦将他们称呼为显性、无意识意象、虚构或原始印象，以及一些其它的名字。
但原型似乎最被接受。
所谓的原型，是藉由特定的方法去体验事情的天生倾向。
原型本身没有自己的形式，但它表现就有如我们所见、所为的“组织原理”。
它遵循Freud理论中的直觉法则行事：首先，当一个婴儿想要吃时，他不知道他想要的东西是什么。
他有着相当不明确的渴望，然而，某些特定的东西可以满足他。
集体潜意识名词解释
集体潜意识名词解释荣格提出“集体潜意识”的概念，他认为人格结构由三个层次组成：意识（自我）、个人潜意识（情结）和集体潜意识（原型），这和弗洛伊德的提法有所不同，集体无意识和个人无意识的区别在于：它不是被遗忘的部分，而是我们一直都意识不到的东西。
荣格曾用岛打了个比方，露出水面的那些小岛是人能感知到的意识；由于潮来潮去而显露出来的水面下的地面部分，就是个人无意识；而岛的最底层是作为基地的海床，就是我们的集体潜意识。
集体潜意识由人类自产生以来共有的遗传经验构成，这种潜意识是集体的，而不仅仅属于单个的人。
我们人类很早以前，就已经实现了这种沟通，这个意识并不是表层的意识，而是最深层的潜意识。
虽然我们不能够知道彼此在想什么，但其实我们通过集体潜意识是能够感受到，一定范围或者整体人类的一种感受。
从这个角度上说，世界各地有类似的文化，有类似的宗教，有类似的神话，就一点也不奇怪了，因为人类时时相连。
其中“符号”就是启动人的集体潜意识的引信，“符号”是人们本来就记得、熟悉、所喜欢并且还会听它的指挥；“符号”是蕴藏在人类文化里的“原力”，已经为引爆它的人积聚了数万年的能量。
通常使用这三种符号：第一种是自然符号；第二种是公共规则符号；第三种是文化符号。
自然符号，比如说你用一个苹果，用个西瓜，用个蚂蚁，这都属于用自然符号；公共规则符号，比如说乔布斯的苹果电脑，打开浏览器，左上角的放大缩小关闭的按钮设计，就是用的红绿灯的符号，这就是用公共规则的符号，因为人们习惯按这个指示来行事；文化符号分为两类，一类是中国文化符号，一类是全球的文化符号。
而创建品牌就需要将自然符号、公共规则符号、文化符号具有天然熟识感的元素植入品牌密码器，给用户一把钥匙，用集体潜意识自动解码。
所以一个“符号”对人的影响总是在不知不觉中就完成的，属于“瞬间植入”。
而要做到这种程度，光拿一个全新的东西让别人记住是不可能的，往往最让人印象深刻的“符号”总是看起来不刻意，但感受起来又特别有深意。
荣格社会潜意识理论
谢 谢 观 赏！
心灵疆域，它受文化的影响是很明显的。
在所有文化和时代中，都有一个 “上帝”存在，也就是信仰的核心，比 如中国的孔子、印度的佛和湿婆、阿拉 伯民族的真主、古埃及的太阳神、古希 腊的宙斯、西方社会的上帝、加拿大地 区的老女人、毛利人的卡呼骑鲸人等。 关于“上帝”的知识可以被理解位 普遍性的人类本能。它和集体潜意识有 着非常密切的联系。由于其影响之大， 往往构成了集体潜意识的主体内容。
—— 奥尔罕· 帕慕克 《伊斯坦布尔：一座城市的忧伤》 （何佩桦译）
•
• •
• 自性（Self）
• 是集体潜意识的核心。 • 其作用是协调人格的各组成部分，使之达 到整合、统一，即自我实现。 • 荣格认为这是人性所要达到的最高目标。
• 达到自性的过程要求人必须彻底地变 革自身，抛弃旧的自我，接受全新的 宇宙性人格。在心理学中，我们倾向 于用自我实现这个术语——虽然不可 救药地不充分。 • 在别的传统中，它被理解成为成佛， 不朽等等。在禅宗中，称之为顿捂。 • 朝圣者要放弃以前拥有的一切，去经 历完全的超越。
参考书目：
[美]彼得· 班克特著：《谈 话疗法：东西方心理治疗的 历史》，上海社会科学科学 院出版社，2006年版。 徐钧著： 《心理咨询师的 部落传说 》，新华出版社， 2008年版。 申荷永： 《荣格与分析心 理学 》，广东高等教育出 版社，2004年版。
推荐书目：
[瑞士]荣格著： 《 荣格自 传》，国际文化出版公司， 2005年版； 《未发现的自 我》，国际文化出版公司， 2007年版； 《荣格文集 》， 改革出版社,1997年版。 [美]霍尔· 诺德贝著： 《 荣格心理学入门》，三 联书店，1987年版。
荣格 人格 层次
荣格人格层次
荣格人格层次理论是由瑞士心理学家卡尔·荣格（Carl Jung）
提出的一种心理分析理论。
该理论认为人的心理结构由意识和潜意识两个层次组成，同时又将潜意识进一步分为个人潜意识和集体潜意识。
荣格将人格层次分为以下四个层次：
1.个体层次（个人无意识）：包括个人的经历、过去的记忆、
人格特质和个人经验等。
个人无意识是人自己的个体心理内容，不同个人之间具有差异。
2.个人潜意识：个人潜意识是个人无意识中的一个更深层次，
包括个人无法意识到的心理内容，如潜藏的欲望、克制的情感、未经处理的经历等。
个人潜意识的内容形成了个人的性格特点和个体心理。
3.集体潜意识：集体潜意识是人类共有的心理结构，包含了人
类共同的本能和普遍存在的符号。
这种潜意识内容超出了个体经验，表现为共有的象征、神话和文化等共同的心理经验。
4.整体自我：整体自我是人的心理最高层次，可以理解为人实
现自我完整性的目标。
整体自我与个人的意识和潜意识内容进行整合和统一，实现自我和谐发展。
荣格的人格层次理论认为，个体的心理结构并不仅仅局限于个人的意识和潜意识，还与集体心理有着密切的联系。
通过理解
和认识个人无意识和集体潜意识的内容，人们可以更好地理解自己和他人的行为和心理特点，实现个体的心理发展和整合。
[杂感篇275] 集体潜意识(一)
![[杂感篇275] 集体潜意识(一)](https://img.taocdn.com/s3/m/0bf273343169a4517723a3c9.png)
[杂感篇275］集体潜意识（一）手边搁置很久的一册荣格的《心理类型》，昨天终于翻看第一章。
一章就有52页，理论性强，有点不好读。
想到了标题的这个名词，就是荣格分析心理学的一个关键词。
读不快，先开个头。
想通过心理学的阅读思考，更好理解这个A股里的大众交易心理，改善自己的交易心态。
一般，理论性的书籍，至少复读两遍，也仅能大概明白作者的思想。
心理学家，是喜欢思索无意识和人生种种神秘现象的一群人。
荣格称：“我的一生是无意识自我实现的历程”。
人类千奇百怪的神秘现象，在股市里比比皆是。
以下是阅读中散碎的相关随笔。
贪婪或恐惧，是人性之一，也会转化为心理能量。
社会活动中的一种心理沉淀是集体无意识，支配和规范着人的精神活动，使人无法超越和摆脱。
心理学有显意和隐意、意识和无意识等概念，A股的猴性、炒作题材的疯狂，是市场的一种集体无意识，要从心理学角度进行理解和思考，仅局部于理性是不能全面解释的，与股市的历史文化有关。
散户们是这个历史文化的携带者。
1，我们能够看到色彩，但看不到波长，于是每个人之间，出现了看法的差异。
每个人都是从自己出发，看到了最易看到的东西。
于是，每个人都坚持自己的看法是对的。
能看清自己身上的大缺陷，太难了，即人是难以做到客观的，无法做到纯粹客观。
（做股票同样如此，不断的去伪存真，不能教条，不能迷信，逻辑的客观性是有限的）。
2，要摆脱集体观念和集体情感的强制性影响，获得对自己个性的清晰概念，才能完全了解你自己。
否则，个性泯灭在集体主义的外表之下，人不自觉在陷入到集体潜意识之中（在股市里，盲目跟风炒作，弱手最容易被强手放在高位站岗）。
3，人的天性之一，人会本能地在自然的过程之中，依循最小阻抗的原则。
人不能适应市场之心的时候，是人单一性的态度，即心理的缺陷所引起的，人要自我救赎（既要善于思考自身，又要善于观察市场，两方面不可偏废）。
4，认为理念是具有永恒不变的有效性，是唯实论。
认为要从现实观点出发，概念是无用的，是唯名论。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
• 阿妮玛（Anima） 和阿妮姆斯（Animus）：又称 男女两性意象。阿妮玛指男性心灵中女性成分或意 象，是在漫长的岁月里男女交往所得到的经验而产 生的，它有两个作用：一使男性具有女性特征；二 提供男女之间交往的模式。 • 阿妮姆斯是女性心灵中的男性成分或意象，其作用 有二：一使女性具有一定的男性特征；二获得与男 性交往的模式。 • 阿妮玛为男性提供了心灵中理想的女性，阿妮姆斯 为女性塑造了心目中理想的男性。
• 里比多称之为心理能量（Psychic energy）,是 一种普通的生命力，是人格的动力，在意识中它表 现为运动或力量，在无意识中它表现为一种状态， 共同推动人格发展，遵循守恒定律即能量永远不会 在心录是消失只是由一种心理活动转到别的心理活 动，而且心理能量的分布和流动是有方向的，这就 是熵增加原理。这种方向表现为前行或退行，前行 指人利用日常生活经验来满足环境的需要；
• 阴影(Shadow)：人的心灵中遗传下来的最黑暗、隐 秘、最深层的邪恶攻击、狂暴的倾向以妖魔鬼怪或 仇敌的形象投射到外部世界。包括动物所有本能， 是我们本能的原始部分。 • 自性（Self）：是集体潜意识的核心，其作用是协 调人格中的其它部分代表人类达到人格统一和整合 的力量，即自我实现。
• (三)荣格的人格动力理论
• 荣誉： • 1932年，聘为苏黎世联邦综合技术大学教授，获苏 黎世城文学奖 • 1938年，选为英国皇家医学会名誉会员 • 1944年，瑞士医学科学院名誉会员 • 1944年，巴塞尔大学医学心理学教授 • 1948年，苏黎世建立荣格学院，后扩展至伦敦、纽 约、旧金山和洛杉矾相继建立荣格学院；被称为 “苏黎世圣哲” • 1916年6月6日，逝世于瑞士库斯那赫特，享年86 岁
• 二、荣格的分析心理学 • （一）简介
• 卡尔﹒古斯塔夫﹒荣格（Carl Giustar Jung ,1875~1961);瑞士著名心理学家和精神病医 生，分析心理学的创始人。
• 童年：
• 1875年月26日出生于瑞士凯斯威尔乡村小镇， 非常内省，对外界比较封闭、宗教家庭、父母不和、 父子隔阂、恋母仇父、常独自玩耍、性格孤僻、内 倾、常与2英寸木人像对话、智力早熟者，十九岁 已阅读大量神学著作和哲学著作。
• 成年及晚年：
• 1906年荣格与弗洛伊德通信，1907年在弗洛伊 德的家里会面达13小时，两人成为了挚友，共同创 办了国际精神分析学会，任第一任主席。荣格思想 独立，起初对弗洛伊德的理论有不同的观点，1913 年发表《精神分析理论》公开反对弗洛伊德把里比 多能量解释为原始性欲的观点，1914年二人决裂。 此后的7年荣格独自工作，沉湎于自己的奇特想法、 梦和想象中。
• • • • • • • •
著作： 《潜意识心理学》 1912年 《心理类型学》 1921年 《分析心理学的贡献》 1928年 《寻求灵魂的现代人》 1933年 《分析心理学的理论与实践》 1958年 《记忆、梦、反思》 1961年 《人及其公正》 1964年
(二)、荣格的人格结构理论
• 人格的总体称为“心灵”，包括一切有意识和潜意 识的思想、快感和行为。 • 有三个层次组成：意识、个体潜意识和集体潜意识。 • 意识：是心灵中能够被直接感知的部分，与思维、 快感、记忆和知觉有关。（Eg年醒来，发表了《心理类型学》提出性格类型 说，接着先后到突尼斯、阿尔及利亚、美洲、肯尼 亚、埃及、印度等国家的原始部落，研究未开化的 心理过程，并对中国的禅宗、佛学、道家学说和 《易经》等亚洲文化和东方宗教进行了深入研究， 这为他的“集体潜意识”学说提供了坚实的理论基 础。30年代后，写了大量关于人的本性、原型、象 征、神话、炼金术、人生哲学和心理学著作，形成 了一整套理论体系，即“分析心理学”。
• 把人生划分为四个阶段：童年时期（从出生到 青春期）、青年时期（从青春期到35或40岁）、中 年时期、老年时期。
（五）荣格人格类型学说 • 1、态度类型(general-attitude types) • 内倾型和外倾型两种类型 • 力比多能量的方向流向身体心灵过程——内倾型 （introversion）,重视主观世界，好沉思、喜内省、 易害羞、孤僻、安静。
• 退行是指通过剥夺对立机能的能量，使其流量消失， 用新的机能取代，心理值是测量心理能量的标准。 人的心灵是一个相对封闭的系统或自给自足的能量 系统。 • 荣格还认为，象征也是一种推动和促进心理发 展的力量，它是一种有意义的意象，是自发的以潜 意识中产生的，是原型的外化。 “曼达拉”。
（四）荣格人格发展理论
• 青年：
•
1895年考入巴塞尔大学医学院。其祖父在此大 学创办了第一所精神病院和弱智儿童疗养院，此对 荣格走向精神医生的职业起了重要作用。1900年获 得医学学位，1902年完成博士论文《论所谓神秘现 象的心理学和病理学》。 • 联想实验研究，初步形成了“情结”理论，赢得了 声誉。1902~1903年的冬天，跟随皮埃尔让内（法 国著名精神病学家）这位主张精神心理病因的老师 对荣格产生了深刻的影响。
• 个体潜意识：潜意识的表层，它包括了一切被遗忘 了的记忆、知觉以及被压抑的经验或者在一开始就 没有形成意识印象的那些下意识的东西组成。
• 集体潜意识：最重要有力量的部分，是指在漫长的 历史演化过程中世代积累的人类祖先的经验，是人 类必须对某些事件作出特定反应的先天遗传倾向， 是个体始终意识不到的心理内容。 • 集体潜意识主要内容是原型（Archetype or Prototype）,深埋在心灵之中，不能在意识中直接 表现。荣格认为，这些原型是以特定方式对外界进 行反应的可能性，所有原型的集合就构成了集体潜 意识。主要的原型有： • 人格面具（Persona）：人在公共场合中表现出来 的人格方面，其目的在于表现一种对自己有利的良 好形象以便得到社会认可。使人在社会中获益，但 过分关注人人格面具，则会对心理健康造成危害。