... how can energy go from either of these into the collective unconscious? — McMootch

The hunger of the lion becomes the stampede of the buffalo. Don't equate psyche's energy to physical energy; a powerful idea does not have a big engine or strong muscles. An appealing lie can lead to war.

The problem with writing it off as non-physical for me is that the equivalence principal seems to treat psychic energy as something of which there’s an amount...

But I realize this may be a problem for interpreting Jung; that is, the belief that everything human, including the psyche, is ultimately physiological. I realize psychic energy is distinct from metabolic energy; but to say it’s entirely non-physical is a metaphysical view that to me is akin to Platonism. So I guess I’m wondering if he needs to be read this way, or whether it’s even clearly stated anywhere where he stood on the matter. I suppose I’m partly curious because I can’t justify spending $80 on volume 8 of the collected works unless I have reason believe there’s more to Jung than Platonism... lol.

Thanks for the reply!

The sort of thing Jung wants to get a handle on with the notion of the collective unconscious is - well, something like 'zeitgeist'. So he might talk about the energy, or momentum of Nazism in 1930s Germany. Now we could in a hand-waving way reduce it all to social facilitation, conformity, propaganda, and so on, but there are two problems, one is that it has very little explanatory value, and the other is that the reductive tendency is itself very much part of the zeitgeist. One has to reduce one's own theorising to the same semi random mechanics as everything else. But probably don't bother to try and wade through all the dude's works, there's just way too much and life's too short. Have you come across Gregory Bateson? He's more modern, and way more brief and focussed. But stay away from his fans, especially the NLP brigade.

(That link is just a random paper I happened to have already in reference to another thread. 'Steps to an Ecology of Mind is his classic)

I’ve got a reddit thread going with the same questions, and just posted some clarification on my questions; may as well put them up here:

Re: I) (collective unconscious):

The equivalence principal (according to my book) states that if some psychic energy in the consciousness, personal unconscious, or collective unconscious is lost, it doesn’t disappear, it will re-appear somewhere else (e.g. if I forget something there’s a displacement of psychic energy from the consciousness to my personal unconscious.)

This makes perfect sense to me if you don’t include the collective unconscious as a potential recipient of psychic energy. Otherwise it’s like saying certain ideas existed before the human mind ever developed, and if we all suddenly disappeared from the universe all those ideas would still harbour our psychic energy. I’m wondering if Jung needs to be read this way?

Re: II) and III) (psychic energy quanta)

I’m wondering about having more overall psychic energy, and about having more or less psychic energy apportioned to the consciousness and unconscious.

II) From what I’ve read so far, I understand that the more consciousness develops, and the more your personality is balanced (integrated shadow, etc.), the more psychic material you’re able to assimilate and “convert” into psychic energy. So no doubt some psyches have more (psychic) energy due to the amount they appropriate throughout maturity. But I guess what I’m wondering is if Jung thought one psyche could be better inclined to appropriate energy than another; or in other words, if he thought a psyche could be more energetic not only through nurture, but by nature as well.

III) Another way of putting this question is: do various individuals have differing ratios of conscious/unconscious psychic energy. I can imagine, for example, a person (a) who’s ego works “faster” than another’s (b), and brings more psychic material into consciousness. In this case, if the other person (b) has the same amount of overall psychic energy, they’ll presumably have more material stored in their unconscious than person (a) (equal sum different ratio). Or, if the overall psychic energy is different between the two individuals, it could be that person (b) has less conscious AND unconscious psychic energy than person (a), even if their ratio favours unconscious energy. If this way of thinking is sound, it prompts questions like, what would a personality with more conscious energy be like? And what would a personality with more unconscious energy be like? I’m wondering if Jung or any Jungians have addressed these questions, or if I’m getting something wrong and they’re unsound.

It might seem that I’m overthinking these things, but I really want to get the fundamentals of Jung’s thought straight before I move on. Not that I need to agree with the fundamentals of his thought before I move on, I just want to know what I’m dealing with.