Archetypal Psychology - Richard Wilkerson

4/9/2014
Archetypal Psychology - Richard Wilkerson
Archetypal Psychology and Dreamwork

Richard Catlett Wilkerson
o|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|o
[All footnotes without an author refer to James Hillman.]

Welcome to the topsy-turvey world of Archetypal Psychology! At first
the ride through this post-Jungian school of thought may feel like you
are in a Fellini film or playing a game of Shoots and Ladders, but
eventually the seriousness by which they take the imagination and
the depth they give to the dream and other images is perhaps better
characterized by a Bergman film, full of pregnant pauses and
unexpected glances that bring our attention to the overtones and
undertones of the moment and lead us deeper into the image.
Archetypal psychology separated itself as a distinct school from
Jungian psychology in the early 1970s. As its founder and most
prolific writer, James Hillman, says of archetypal psychology, it is an
attempt to connect to the wider culture of Western Imagination
beyond the consulting room (Archetypal Psychology, 1) That is,
archetypal psychology has roots in personal analysis, but extends its
applications to art, architecture, literature and other cultural
products. The archetype, so crucial to Jungian psychology, is released
from being an archetype ~in~ us and seen more as an adjective than
a noun, an encounter that finds its expression in all aspects of life.
It is recognized as being prior and more fundamental to life than any
individual psyche.
Archetypes, seen in Jungian psychology as the structures that
underpin the psyche, take on another role in Archetypal psychology
where they are seen as structures in process (Re-Visioning
Psychology, 148).
The term archetypes typically refers to psychological patterns that
appear thought human experience and can be seen in the motifs of
age-old myths, legends, and fairy tales found in every culture through
the history of the human species. Archetypes, the symbolic forms of
the unconscious, can also be seen in the imagery of the dream.
Examples of archetypes are the wise old man/woman the tree of
life, the journey, and home. ( Aizenstat,1995, 95)
But in archetypal psychology this definition is expanded beyond
ones personal relationship with these structuring powers to include
the non-personal imaginal realm. Our broader view of Depth
Psychology includes the psychic realities of all phenomena,
emphasizing the part of the Depth Psychology tradition that honors
psyche in the world. (Aizenstat , 1995, 95)
http://www.improverse.com/ed-articles/richard_wilkerson_2003_aug_archetypal_psychology.htm
1/15
4/9/2014
When we talk about the appearance of archetypes as people in

dreams or in imaginative spaces, then the ~persons~ of archetypes
emerge, the phantasmagoria, the mythical figures, the daimones, and
gods. When discussed in terms of symptoms and affect, they are
discussed as the styles of suffering (paranoid, borderline, phobic).
When discussed as ideas, they express the intellectual psyche. That
is, they express themselves as ideas important to soul. A God is a
manner of existence, an attitude toward existence, and a set of
ideas. (Re-Visioning, 103) Each perspective comes with a whole
pantheon of deities, sub-deities, nymphs, wrights, angels, demons,
symbols, landscapes, plants, activities and modes of behavior. This is
perhaps a clumsy way to refer to what happens, but to date is also
the most elegant. When your daughter falls in love with a guy who is
a disaster, it becomes clear that the whole pantheon of the god of
love has become activated, along with all that this entails. The
ability of these powers to possess and direct our behavior, to cause
us suffering, but also to give us meaning, would be inadequately
expressed as anything less than the possession by a god. We rarely
have ideas of importance, they have us.
What really makes archetypal psychology different than Jungian
analysis of individuals and culture? There are many levels to this
answer, some of which are quite complex, but basically there is a
shift in the attitude of the psyche being in us to us being in the
psyche. Some would argue that Jung made this shift himself (When
we are awake we say we had a dream, but when we are dreaming we
know the dream has us). However, the archetypal school draws these
elements out in a particular way that brings into question a wide
variety of Jungian concepts, including the Self, the Heroic ego,
representations, symbols and many other ideas.
Key concepts: soul, archetype, imagination, psyche
Andrew Samuels (Jung and the Post-Jungians, 1985) notes that a
survey of the main tenets of archetypal psychology need to include
the primary concept of archetype, its area of interest as the image,
and its vehicle as mythology that opens instead of grounds and a
world view of pluralism and polytheism. However, it is the revisioning of the concept of the ~soul~ that directs archetypal
psychology.
Typically in the West, we encounter the concept of the soul in
spiritual terms, but the archetypal school sees it more in its direction
of depth, not the rising heights of spirit.
Hillman borrows the term soul-making from the Romantics. As
Keats says in a letter to his brother Call the world if you please,
The vale of Soul-making, Then you will find out the use of the
2/15
4/9/2014
world (April 21, 1819 Letter to George and Georgiana Keats)

From this perspective, say Hillman the human adventure is a
wandering through the vale of the world for the sake of making soul.
(Re-Visioning, ix) Since our life is already psychological, it behooves
us to find the connection between this psyche/soul and the world,
and a place for soul in this world. Just noticing is not enough, some
encountering is needed. it is not enough to evoke soul and sing its
praises. The job of psychology is to offer a way and find a place for
soul within its own field. For this we need basic psychological ideas.
(Re-Visioning, ix)
But what is the soul? By soul I mean, first of all, a perspective
rather than a substance, a viewpoint toward things rather than a
thing itself. (Re-Visioning, x) Wherever there is an encounter, there
is a something that comes between the encounter and me. Soulmaking is opening up this middle ground between. In another
attempt upon the idea of soul I suggested that the word refers to
that unknown component which makes meaning possible, turns
events into experience, is communicated in love, and has a religious
concern. (Re-Visioning, x).
Three modes of soul then emerge:
1. Soul as the deepening of events into experience.
2. The soul has a relation with death, and hence love and spirituality.
3. The imaginative possibility of our nature. Reflective speculation,
dream, imagery and fantasy. Imagination, depth, symbolic,
metaphorical realm.
Image is psyche said Carl Jung (Re-Visioning, 23) and this is a
strange thing to hear at first. Usually we think of our psyche as a
receptacle full of images at times, cleared at other times. But here,
psyche ~is~ image. There is no consciousness that is not already and
first an image, a perspective. We cant bracket out our fantasies,
because the whole notion of bracketing out is itself a fantasy.
Jung says that by image we do not mean the psychic reflection of an
external object, but a concept derived from poetic usage, names a
figure of fancy or fantasy image CW6 743 (From Berry, 1982, 57)
This places the image in a middle zone between, with
matter/concrete below it and spirit/abstract/ideal above it. Its no
wonder the Greeks call the butterfly Psyche as it hovers between
heaven and earth. As Casey notes, this middle zone, call it psyche,
imaginal or soul, also connects the ideal with the material. It is the
imaginal that grounds spirit and the imaginal that lifts it into the
abstract. (Casey, 1991).
In archetypal psychology, the image is primary. The image doesnt
(primarily) represent something else. Thus dream images, as with all
images, are not symbols, are not analogies, are not signs, are
representations. The image is therefore not just visual, though it may
3/15
4/9/2014
at times take on visuals. Rather it is image in the sense that I might

say Let me give you an image of what happened last night at
dinner. It is a sensibility rather than a sense, and it has a degree of
autonomy from my psyche.
If these imaginal beings are not in my psyche, where are they?
Scholar Henry Corbin contributes a concept from Islamic mysticism,
the mundus imaginalis, which is an imaginal realm between the
subjective and objective. This realm is filled with imaginal beings,
who may take the shape of our own complexes in our dreams. We
see, for example, our mother in our dream, but its not our literal
mother. Rather it is an imaginal being that has taken on the look and
act of our personal mother, attracted, we might say, by our mother
complex. (Corbin, 1969)
Corbins placing of archetypal realities in the middle zone of reality
reveals the archetype as accessible to imagination first. First when it
presents itself as image and so the whole procedure of archetypal
psychology becomes imaginative, its tools rhetorical and poetic, its
reasoning beyond logic and it goal other than social adaptation or
traditional mental health. In terms of therapeutic work, the goal is to
restore the person to imaginal realities long since repressed by the
culture. That is, the aim is the development of a sense of soul as the
middle ground of reality, and the method of therapy is the cultivation
of imagination. (Archetypal Psychology)
This imaginal realm plays itself out in culture as well as our dreams.
We can see the state of our souls in the buildings and architecture of
our cities, in the parks and choices of cars, in the way we inhabit and
decorate our houses. (City as Dwelling, 1980) Inner is a way of
seeing these events more than something literally inside us or them.
The depth that we bring to an event has more to do with the way we
encounter it than something inherent held inside. To the degree that
the world is just a means to some other end, it will seem sterile and
mechanical. To the degree we give it meaning, it will reveal to us
its significance. (Avens, 1984). Soul, the deepening of events into
experiences.
And so things get turned around in archetypal psychology. Reality is
seen as various perspectives, or in other words , as so much
imagination. Imagination takes on a new status of existing, and
becomes reality. All our ways of seeing are imaginal, even our
attempts to see without and beyond imagination. (Avens , 1980). It
is a psychology that starts on the notion of a poetic basis of mind
rather than the brain, language, developmental theory, social
organization or behaviorism. Rather it starts with imagination.
Hillman traces the ancestral line of archetypal psychology leading
back from Carl Jung through Freud, Dilthly, Coleridge, Schelling, Vico,
Ficino, Plotinus, and Plato to Heraclitusand with even more
4/15
4/9/2014
branches which have yet to be traced. Heraclitus lies near the roots
of this ancestral tree of thought, since he was the earliest to take
psyche as his archetypal first principle, to imagine soul in terms of
flux and to speak of its depth without measure. (Re-Visioning, xi)
From Heraclitus You could not discover the limits of the soul
(psyche) , even if you traveled every road to do so; such is the depth
(bathum) of its meaning (logos) (Revisioning xi)
Like soul, the word archetype is also difficult to define. Archetype
becomes more of a metaphor than a thing. Envisioning the basic
structure of the soul in an archetypal way shifts all discussion of it
and all basic questions of psychology to the realm of the imagination.
Hillman maintains, with Jung, that archetypes are the deepest
patterns of the psychic functioning. They govern our perspectives, our
genres in literature, our symptoms in psychopathology, our rituals
and relations in anthropology. But more important for archetypal
psychology is not the abstract structuring qualities of the archetype,
but their emotionally possessive effect, the way they take over
consciousness and bewitch it. Note for example the daughter in who
falls in love with a man who will ruin her, but is totally blind to this
though everyone else can see it. Or the boss who has gained power
and become taken over with power and can no longer hear anyone
else and has become blind to all who work below her/him. Or the
person driven to suicide, finding no other path, though if convinced by
others to wait a day, finds his whole mood changed.
And so, we see the archetype first in behavior (possession) we can
see the archetype in images (dreams, myths) and finally in a style of
consciousness or attitude, as in the heroic style of consciousness of
independence, strength, conquest and single-mindedness.
One almost always hears archetypal psychologists speak in terms or
archetypal rather than archetype. This emphasizes both the intensity
of the encounter as well as the plurality. That is, that archetypes are
not singled out for study, but impact us in multifaceted ways, and do
so in a manner that overwhelms the ego.
What does this all mean for dreamwork? At first, it may seem
unclear. One famous dreamworker who reviewed Hillmans Dreams
and the Underworld said of the book the book talks about why we
shouldnt do dreamwork, then gives examples of how to do it.
And yet the process is really quite simple. Stick with the image.
Instead of elaborating, associating, interpreting, second guessing,
finding links to your life, just stick with the image. Just like meeting
something or someone you have never met before, though they may
be wearing the clothes and face of those familiar to you. And just like
a friend, we dont get to know them more deeply by interpreting
them, but by grasping them as a whole image, a whole being.
When the images are intolerable, this simple rule of sticking with the
image is more difficult. Even friendly images can be difficult to stick
5/15
4/9/2014
with. Thus some theoretical background and context to the work as a

whole may be helpful in teaching us what to do and not do with our
nocturnal guests.
Personification
As previously discussed, in archetypal psychology the human is not
the only being with a soul, and the soul we have is multiple. That is,
there are other things than our ego, our subject in the subject/object
split, that are allowed to be ensouled. This doesnt mean that every
object is now seen as being alive and having an independent
consciousness. This would be what is called a spiritualist fallacy,
applying the project of soul in an abstract manner of grids over all of
reality. Instead, the rock may or may not be currently inhabited. The
buildings soul may be revealing itself one moment and not the next.
And people with egos may act quite soulless. We find out though
giving the other meaning, and waiting to see if it reveals its
significance. We wait, we listen, we make time and room for
otherness.
At first this seems completely contrary to modern therapy and the
notion of re-owning ones projections. Typically the path of
contemporary ego integration is for the client to bring all these
imaginations that are out there on others into ones consciousness
and be responsible for these creations. We see this in the Gestalt
dreamwork of looking at every piece of the dream as oneself, as well
as the dreamwork where every piece of the dream brings with it a
message or presentation that is related to our egos future self
development.
Rather personifying is taken by archetypal psychology to be the
spontaneous experiencing, envisioning and speaking of the
configurations of existence as psychic presences (Re-Visioning, 12)
Some ways we may error in approaching an image.
1. Allegory. Allegory tends to provide a lesson and the
personification of gods and goddesses become simply illustrations of
a principle. Ah, yes, this flower in the dream is the allegory of the
rose and means thus and such. Or worse, it picks up the positive
side of an image or principle or myth and shoves off the pathological
side, which may be the part of the image that hold the depth.
Allegory, write Hillman is a defensive reaction of the rational mind
against the full power of the souls irrational personifying propensity
(Re-Visioning, 8).
2. Using words as signifieds. Just as one can impose a pre-existing
theory on a dream, one can also toss word-meanings at the image.
Consider that there are two approaches to the use of words,
signifying and evoking. In the first, the word is a sign, which we have
learned points to a particular concept. Couch, tree, cow. In modern
language we have operationally defined concepts of reason and we
have words of belief. Between these two there isnt much room to
maneuver, and yet, this space in-between is exactly the place of soul
and imagination. Words in the between realm dont signify something
6/15
4/9/2014
other than themselves, but evoke and themselves become part of the
event. This is also the realm of poetry. We can never tell beforehand
if the evoked will appear. It doesnt signify a stable concept.
3. Personification vs. personifying. The attribution of personified
objects outside the person has survived the death of God in
contemporary society in the forms of pathology and anthropology. We
either talk about people falsely attributing human characteristics to
objects (anthropomorphizing) or we talk about primitive people and
animism, the attribution of living souls to inanimate objects. To
avoid this name-calling which assumes we take something inside and
project it outside, archetypal psychology uses the word personifying,
which assumes the existence of souls ~prior~ to our reflecting upon
them.
Whats the point of all this poetic soul-making and personifying?
Hillman reminds us that the Greeks and Romans used to have psychic
powers that they worshiped, Insolence, Night, Ugliness, Timing,
Hope, Mercy, Forgetfulness and when neglected, people fell sick,
which is also what Jung never tired of saying. The point, Hillman
points out, is not to start up a new series of cults, but to see this
activity as cultural personifying. Finding these images in our hearts
and dreams and culture returns abstract thoughts and dead matter to
human shapes.
This leads us to a mythopoetic world view. In this view, myths are
not stories but personifications that draw one into contact with
depth. The mythic consciousness is able to engage a world that is
animated with soul. where imagination reigns, personifying
happens. (Re-Visoning, 17) or as Jung put it Image is psyche, the
psyche consists essentially of images a picturing of vital activates
(CW 13 #58)
One of the consequences of this view is that we too, are imaginal
being.
Naming with images and metaphors has an advantage over naming
with concepts, for personified namings never mere dead tools. (ReVisioning, 32)
Hillman notes that personifying, whether it is done pathologically or
intentionally, functions to save the diversity and autonomy of the
psyche from domination by any single power, whether this domination
be by a figure of archetypal awe in ones surroundings or by ones
own egomania. (Re-Visioning, 32)
In some dreams, the various styles of presence are mirrored in a
scene. these styles are embodied in persons who are embroiled with
each other. (Re-Visioning, 32)
These personalities at night infuse themselves into the attitudes
that dominate our daily lives. (Re-Visioning, 32-33)
7/15
4/9/2014
Dreams, then, for archetypal psychology hold a special place as they

can present an encounter that the waking ego may be unable to
access with all its waking defenses intact (in waking, they can still
overwhelm us, but we call them symptoms.) That is, while dreaming
we are aware of our status as one of many autonomous, imaginal
beings.
Thus archetypal psychology allows the image to work on us. There
may not even be a conclusion or goal. Imagination doesnt have to
achieve or commit to create. In fact, it works better through falling
apart, coming to pieces, separating rather than unifying, diversifying
rather than integrating, multiplying instead of hierarchical-izing.
In dreamwork, this requires moving towards and staying with the
intolerable, (Aizenstat, 2003) , the unusual, the alien. The images
must be alien even while familiar, strangers even if lovers, uncanny
although we rely on them. (Re-Visioning, 41)
The myth of Eros and Psyche is taken seriously. It is through love one
can see the person in the imaginary and the imaginal layer that
pervades all we see. every symptom or habit, fining place for it
within the heart of imagination, finding mythical person who is its
supportive ground. (Re-Visioning, 44)
Pathologizing
Why on earth would pathologizing be of use to archetypal
psychology, or anyone for that matter? To find that part of psyche
which is most hidden and alien to ego consciousness, there is no
better place than in the sick, suffering, abnormal and fantastic
symptoms. What Hillman means by the term is the psyches
autonomous ability to create illness, morbidity, disorder, abnormality,
and suffering in any aspect of the its behavior and to experience and
imagine life through this deformed and afflicted perspective. (ReVisioning, 57) Through the pathologizing activities of the soul,
archetypal psychology develops a psychological necessity. Once this
necessity if found, then pathologizing isnt right or wrong, but more
finds its place in the whole as necessary. That is, we begin to learn
how it is speaking and what it is saying. Part of this is seeing the
pathological as primary and inherent in all psychic events rather than
speaking of abnormal psychology which splits the psyche into
artificial parts, health and illness, sin and redemption.
There are three ways that we often avoid allowing space for the
pathological psyche.
The first is by careful naming and labeling, as mentioned above. This
accurate sketch of symptoms, their onset, their course, the expected
outcome, all expose a secret power dynamic to make them sensible
and deny their irascible essence.
8/15
4/9/2014
The second way of avoiding the psyches true pathology is by shifting

the insanity from the individual to the society, but in the end
maintains the division. The importance of
phenomenological/existential schools in exposing the insanity of
culture and offering us authentic choices and alternatives is surely to
be acknowledged, but as a full view of psyche they just becomes
one-sided and nihilistic.
The third way to avoid pathology is with sugary humanism, which
tries to stay above it all, focusing on the higher virtues of mankind,
its health, hope, self-transcendent warmth and love and courage. But
by turning away from the psyches pathologizing, they turn away from
its full richness and depth.
As a larger picture, we can look at the Neo-platonic model to see how
there is often a struggle and confusion between spirit and soul
mentioned above in the placement of psyche/soul ~between~ spirit
and concrete matter. However, in our culture both are often folded
into spirit and spirit dominates in the realm of the abstract and ideal.
That is, we turn psychopathology into a material thing to be cured by
medicine or a spiritual thing to be worshiped or ennobled. When does
it get its own realm?
How does one go with pathology then? Hillman suggests we expand
Jungs phrase dreaming the dream onward to include pathologizing
the myth onward. This means trying to find a way to stick with the
mess. This means finding imaginal methods and allowing the
madness to teach us the method. We do not decrease their value by
considering them as signs of medical sickness or inflate their value
by considering them as signs of spiritual suffering. They are ways of
the psyche and ways of finding soul. (Re-Visioning, 75)
In dreamwork, for example, the way to stay with an image is first to
not set its value in terms of literal nature. So often the twisted,
turned, bent and out of shape scenes are seen as problems while
idyllic scenes are taken as sign of our equilibrium and health. The
more nature the more positive, the more distorted, the more
negative. By employing the dream as model of psychic actuality, and
by conceiving a theory of personality based upon the dream, we are
imagining the psyches basic structure to be an inscape of personified
images. The full consequences of this structure imply that the psyche
presents its own imaginal dimensions, operates freely without words,
and is constituted of multiple personalities. (Re-Visioning, 33)
Psychologizing or Seeing Through

Psychologizing is seen as the souls root and native activity. The first
9/15
4/9/2014
activity is reflection. This is not a passive reflection, but seeing

reflection in all activity and behavior. Though not all ideas are
necessarily worthy of soul making, Hillman writes By psychological
ideas, I mean those that engender the souls reflection upon its
nature, structure, and purpose. (Re-Visioning, 117) As a general
guide, the process is one of de-literalizing, of moving into the
metaphorical, of gathering up the overtones and after tones that get
cut off when we speak literally.
It may be easier to talk about these ideas as archetypes, the souls
relation with death, with body, the world, other souls, love, beauty,
sickness, family, ancestors, power, history, time. It is there
relationship to psyche that makes them archetypal and keeps them
connected with soul. The souls that cant find and generate ideas
become lost, hollow, lacking in imagination. What a radical idea it
would be to see a dream a day as its own idea, its own new world
perspective, its own school of philosophy. The psyche expresses itself
in these ideas. In this sense, psychologizing means seeing through
the view presented by the psyche, putting on its eyes and looking
through its eyes, as well as seeing from what archetypal fantasy this
view is coming from. This turning of ideas back upon themselves is a
way we come to know the frames of our consciousness and the
prisons of our mind.
Through psychologizing I change the idea of any literal action at all
political, scientific, personalinto a metaphorical enactment. I
recognize that though my ideas I apprehend and am apprehended by
my inmost subjectivity, entering all actions in the role of an idea
(Re-Visioning, 127)
In other words, by placing the scene we are in within the stage of
psychological powers (perspectives, gods, archetypes) we create a
space for the introduction or re-introduction of the imaginal. When
this task is neglected, there is no less fantasy, but the fantasy is
dominated by single views. If I am at a board of directors meeting
and unable to place my position within a larger imaginal field, I am
likely to be caught up in the egoic dramas, the continual power plays,
the continual need to be heard. Allowing for a more polytheistic
placement, seeing that a wider variety of perspectives and imps and
ideas and demons are at play, the board meeting can open up from
its monotheistic bottom line or need for progress and take on the
larger goals of, say for example, unfolding the complexities of the
mission statement of the organization and recognizing the
development of relations that can bring in novelty and innovation.
This will be as true for the board meeting in the waking world as the
board meeting in my dream.
So, in psychologizing, we look for the fantasy that is dominant in a
time or space. There is no specific procedure for this. It may be
through an historical examination of underlying causes, it may be a
semiological analysis, it may be a philosophical debate. It may be
10/15
4/9/2014
through humor or art or love. But again, the process is one of deliteraling. Some mistakes we make in trying to hear metaphor
include:
1. Abstract Liternalness. Theology and metaphysical often take as
literal the most abstract of concepts. In this way they speak about
soul, but are really avoiding soul in talk about redemption, truth, and
ideals.
2. Body Liternalness. The body is always concrete, but not literal. The
body engages in a wide variety of tasks which are concrete but not
just literal, such as eating, dancing, copulating, fighting, running.
Steps in seeing-through
a. Psychologizing. What is going on here? What is this moment in my
life and as I bring some reflective time into the moment, what
becomes clear? This process may itself be infinitely deep. Once
moment of clarity leading to the next darkness.
b. Deus abscounditus: As we begin to acknowledge the full depth of
the encounter, we find ourselves guided by that something which
always remains unknown, a hidden god. who appears only in
concealment Re-Visioning, 140) and justifies the whole process.
c. Narration: as we elaborate the phenomena before us, we make a
tale of it, and in telling this tale what is before us transforms. All
explanations can be considered narratives and placed mythologically.
d. Ideas as tools: The way it all moves is through ideas, and these
are then the eyes of the soul, the way it sees.
In conclusion, what kind of general world-view is archetypal

psychology offering? Stephen Aizenstat suggests that the move if
from the Collective Unconscious to the World Unconscious.. This view
includes the psychic reality of all phenomena as they manifest in the
world. The world unconscious is a deeper and wider dimension of the
psyche than that of the personal or the collective unconscious. In the
realm of the world unconscious, all creatures and things of the world
are understood at interrelated and interconnected (Aizenstat, 1995,
96)
This view deeply acknowledges the imaginal realm in life and
attempts to restore it value in our culture. The result is an reanimated world of autonomous beings. But while these beings may
not need us, we need them. Images, like myth, are necessary for
the enchantment of the soul, said Plato. There is nothing more
ultimate than thatenchantment, eternal delight in coming and
going, in ascending and descending on Jacobs ladder. The Event
events, Imagination imagines. (Avens, 1984)
11/15
4/9/2014
----------------------------------------------------------------If you are interested in how archetypal psychology might enhance

your own dreamwork, be sure to take the History of Dreams course
offered by Richard Wilkerson at the beginning of each month. The
course includes the history of dreamwork from ancient Thrace to
Cyberspace, covering all major schools of psychology, and many of
the peripheral schools and views. The course also includes dream
anthropology, dream science, lucidity, and many other topics and
areas in dreaming, including archetypal psychology.
http://www.dreamgate.com/class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REFERERNCES AND CITATIONS

Aizenstat, Stephen (2003).DreamTending: Befriending the Archetypal
Imagination. Presentation at the Association for the Study of Dreams
International Conference, Berkeley, CA. June 28th, 2003.
Aizenstat, Stephen (1995). Jungian Psychology and the World
Unconscious. In Ecopsychology: restoring the Earth , Healing the
Mind. (Ed Theodore Roszak, et al) Pp 92-100.
Avens, Robert (1980). Imagination is Reality. Spring Publications ,Inc
Dallas, Texas
Avens, Robert (1984). The New Gnosis. Spring Publications,
Inc.:Dallas,TX
Berry, Patricia. Defense and telos in dreams. Spring, 1978, Vol. ?, 115
127.
Berry, Patricia. (1974). An approach to the dream. Spring, pp. 58 79.
Berry, Patricia. (1978). Defense and telos in dreams. Spring, pp. 115
127.
Berry, Patricia. (1992). Beyond Freud and Jung The impact of new
ideas about dreamwork. Quadrant, 25, 89 91.
Berry, Patricia (1974). An approach to the dream. Spring, 58 79.
Berry, Patricia (1978). Defense and telos in dreams. Spring, 115 127 .
Berry, Patricia (1987). Echo's Subtle Body. Dallas, TX: Spring
Publications.
Berry Hillman, P. (1985). Some dream motifs accompanying the
12/15
4/9/2014
"abandonment" of an analytic practice. Chiron: A Review of Jungian

Analysis, pp. 87 99.
Casey, Edward (1991). Spirit and Soul. Essays in Philosophical
Psychology. Dallas, TX : Spring Publications.
Casey, Edward (1974). Towards an archetypal imagination. Spring,
Corbin, Henry (1972). Mundus imaginalis, or the imaginary and the
imaginal. Spring.
Corbin, Henry (1969). Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn
Arabi. (Trans. Ralph Manheim). Bollingen Series XCL. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Guggenbuhl-Craig (1971) Power in the Helping Professions. Spring
Publications:
Dallas, Tx
Hillman, James (19 ). The Souls Code: In Search of Character and
Calling.
Hillman, James (1991). A Blue Fire. HarperPereinnal.
Hillman, James & Roscher, W. H. (1988). Pan and the Nightmare.
Dallas: Spring Publications, Inc.
Hillman, J. (1987). A psychology of transgression drawn from an
incest dream. Spring, pp. 66 76.
Hillman, James (1985). Anima: an Anatomy of a Personified Notion.
Dallas: Spring Publications.
Hillman, James (1983a). Archetypal Psychology: A Brief Account.
Dallas : Spring Publications.
Hillman, James (1983b). Healing Fiction. Barrytown NY: Station Hill
Press.
Hillman, James (1980). The City As Dwelling: Walking, Sitting,
Shaping. Dallas Institute Publications.
Hillman, James (1979a). Dreams and the Underworld. New York:
Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.
Hillman, James (1979). Image Sense. Spring, 130 143.
Hillman, James (1979). Insearch: Psychology and Religion. Dallas :
Spring Publications.
Hillman, James (1979) Senex and Puer. In Puer Papers (ed Giles, C.)
Dallas : Spring Publications.
13/15
4/9/2014
Hillman, James (1978). Further notes on images. Spring, 152 182.

Hillman, James (1977). An inquiry into image. Spring, pp. 62 88.
Hillman, James (1975a). Lose Ends. Dallas : Spring Publications.
Hillman, James (1975b). Re-Visioning Psycholgy. New York: Harper
and Row.
Hillman, James (1973). The dream and the underworld. Eranos, 42
237 319.
Press.
Hillman, James (1973). The Great Mother, her son, her hero, and the
puer. In Fathers and Mothers (ed Patricia Berry) Spring Publications:
Zurich
Hillman, James (1971). Psychology:monotheistic or polytheistic?
Spring
Hillman, James (1972). The Myth of Analysis. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University
Hillman, James (1964 ). Suicide and the Soul. New York: Harper and
Row Also 1976, Dallas: Spring Publications.
Miller, David (1981). The New Polytheism. Dallas, TX: Spring
Publications.
Perera, Sylvia Brinton (1990). Dream Design: Some Operations
Underling Clinical
Dream Appreciation. In Dreams in Analysis (Eds. Nathan SchwartsSalant and Murray Stein). Pp 39-79. Willmette, IL: Chiron
Publications.
Shelbourne, W. A. (1984). A critique of James Hillman's approach to
the dream. Journal of the Analytical Psychology, 29, 35 56.
Toussulis, Y. (1986) Privately distributed notes. Antioch University
West S.F.,CA
Perera, Silvia. B. (1990). Dream design: Some operations underlying
clinical dream appreciation. In N. Schwartz Salant & M. Stein (Eds.),
Dreams in Analysis (pp. 39 79). Willmette: Chiron Publications.
Electric Dreams issn # 1080 4284

Edite d from first publications, August 2000 by Je nnife r Frase r
C opyrights he ld by individual authors, all rights re se rve d
For re print inform ation contact the publishe r,
R ichard W ilk e rson, E-m ail: rcwilk @dre am gate .com
http://www.dre am gate .com /e le ctric-dre am s
14/15
4/9/2014
15/15

Archetypal Psychology - Richard Wilkerson

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Archetypal Psychology - Richard Wilkerson

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

4/9/2014