(As musicians, we are accustomed to formal analyses that don't emphasize the contents/material of what is analyzed. Herein a therefore relatively abstract reiteration of some of my understanding of the past 24 hours.)
Recently understood aspects of complex formation suggest modification of my own emotional self-analysis:
(1) von Franz clarifies the basic structure of complexes is agglomerative; emotional/cognitive/interpretive elements are added to a given experiential node over the years of one's life, combining with unconscious elements to give the appearance of a vast interconnectedness (this may be obvious to many, but I'd never really understood it until a few months ago – thanks to a convenient drawing)
(2) the real process of analysis and individuation is one of taking those agglomerates apart – you cannot remove your experiences or judgements, but you can disentangle/disconnect them in such a way that all of the parts become more malleable, can develop or fade over time on their own – one becomes, simply, 'saner'
(3) my own long self-examination has tended not to take advantage of this – I've tended to allow events and emotions to continually refer to each other, which is artistically interesting (sort of, anyway) but emotionally tends to become crippling – i.e. as the complex grows to include masses of various things in the unconscious and conscious it becomes impossible to do almost anything, because every aspect of one's entire history/memory seems to refer only to other problems embedded in it
(4) all of this resembles an (oversimplified) Star Wars image of destroying the Death Star – except that you don't get to blow the thing up (as it consists of many parts of you), but you do get to take it apart, and some of the pieces that had seemed more depressing/menacing can then drift away into space, as it were
So, last night's viewing of The History Boys, which has many threads that are both fascinating and disturbing, ended up focusing for me on the whole problem of Getting Into The Great University. Short-term conclusions related to my own case:
(a) Not getting into my ideal college, and the rapid emotional disintegration that followed it, was a watershed event. At that point I combined various existing anxieties and losses (panic at thinking I was getting left behind when we moved at age 3, fears of school bullies, anxieties over growing up gay, new confidence and new embarrassments over the two years previous to this event) to attach them to each other in a massive conglomeration of hopeless resentment that enforced a certain permanent dejection. (N.B.: No need to explain to me that this was not 'really' important – I know that perfectly well – but in my emotional history it was important. These things are not, need I explain, rationally constructed.)
(b) Later ego developments (stage experience, sexual experience, emotional development, increased awareness of dangers and possibilities related to event (a)) tended to get attached to event (a); even the apparently grander and more serious journey related to AIDS, death, loss, and health issues, which then combined with experiences on four continents, interpretations of living environments and internal emotional contexts, retold stories and interpretations, etc., was actually overlaid across event (a) such that everything seemed to establish the basic status of my life.
(c) Thus, interestingly, beginning to separate sorrows and joys over people and relationships, loss and guilt and personal growth/insight related to AIDS and health, and disappointments with myself in a variety of contexts into separate elements, makes it hugely easier to move through, and develop more productive relationships with, all these elements.
On the other hand:
(a') Caveat: is it really possible for a central establishing element to appear so late as age 17? Freudian theory aside, of course. But unfortunately I don't have much understanding of, or awareness in, early developmental psychology; but certainly, though many Jungians spend time on childhood issues, others happily focus on adult events, rather than assuming that everything must have roots in early childhood.
(b') Certainly, childhood experiences loom very large in the unconscious and in the emotional world: but it's also possible (unless I've misunderstood) that some childhood elements may fade into unimportance over time, unless they are revivified or made important by later events. And that, of course, a 'Deathstar' complex can greatly expand after childhood – it may be based on earlier elements, but what makes it powerful may be delayed (I think).
(c') Not to mention: I've always been uncomfortable with the transformation of my expression in many photographs after the age of four or so, when I turn from cheerful into owlishly solemn, rather cautious... but I suspect that searching for a distinctive event to explain that transformation is not possible. Probably just the caution of the nerdy youngest dealing with siblings and peers.
Of course: I could be wrong....
I feel as though there should be a statistical chart for this presentation. Oh well: you can't have everything.
•••
Was pretty satisfied with above insight; went for long walk on sunny day, and started to think: hmm, dubious that it's that simple. However, I do think the age-17 emotional event was central, not just built on earlier experiences.
Therefore: maybe it makes sense to think of this as a sort of 'molecular', as opposed to 'atomic', understanding of my inner workings... still useful though.
And no, I'm still not doing a cool chart...
Comments