Infinite Lives of the Dead Cat: Fields, Attractors, & Quantums in the Collective Unconscious
By John Knight Lundwall
A paper of this scope and limited length must be terse. Therefore, brief definitions are given in the hopes that at some future period the thoughts forming the basis of this thesis can be reexamined and efficaciously expanded. Until that time, I present a modest view of Jungian psychic structure using quantum physics as the primary metaphor. I am not professing that Jungian psychic structure is quantum physics, or vice versa. As Jung himself asserted, we can borrow language from science in an attempt to define our own psychological constructions all the while leaving both the fields of psychology and physics intact unto themselves (Shelburne 1).
Let’s begin with the real mess of the matter: as far as the structure of consciousness and the unconscious are concerned, nothing at all is settled. Human beings are aware they are conscious. They think, and as Descartes declared: “I think, therefore I am.” But how did human beings come to think? From whence did the physical brain acquire the transcendent mind? Numerous theories have addressed these very questions, none with too great success. Indeed, as the science philosopher Emil du Bois-Reymond observed as early as 1872, nature has produced a complete mystery: “...consciousness can not be explained out of its material conditions, what apparently everybody would admit, but that by its own nature, it will never be explainable from these conditions” (Van Loocke 84). Modern science likewise peers at consciousness with a measured yet dumbfounded acceptance, as Gordon Globus lamentably summarizes, “Ultimately, the relationships between the brain and the mind may prove to be beyond our capacity of properly theorizing them...” (Globus 34).
Likewise, the unconscious is a debated entity. Many scholars, psychologists, and scientists agree it exists, but the agreement stops there. Exactly what is the unconscious? How is it linked to consciousness? How is it acquired through biology? What are its neurological mechanisms? Like consciousness, these questions are difficult to answer because the unconscious is not reducible in physics just as the physical brain is irreducible in philosophy (Globus 34).
Briefly, Freud defined the unconscious as a “primitive instinctual force” but also a “sentient force of will...operating well below the conscious mind...direct[ing] the thoughts and feelings of everyone” (Wikipedia.com). Jung’s idea of the unconscious differed from Freud’s on three main points: the unconscious develops autonomously, it is complementary to consciousness, and it is linked to the collective unconscious (Ellenberger 705). Perhaps Jung’s primary contribution to the field of psychology is the idea of the collective unconscious, which, in his own words is defined as:
...fantasies (including dreams) of an impersonal character, which cannot be reduced to experiences in the individual’s past, and thus cannot be explained as something individually acquired. These fantasy-images undoubtedly have their closest analogues in mythological types. We must therefore assume that they correspond to certain collective (and not personal) structural elements of the human psyche in general, and, like the morphological elements of the human body, are inherited.[...] These cases are so numerous that we are obliged to assume the existence of a collective psychic substratum. I have called this the collective unconscious.” (Jung and Kerenyi 74)
For Jung, the collective unconscious was the “true basis of the individual psyche” (Storr, ed. 67). It constituted a “suprapersonal matrix” accumulated over millions of years of human experience (and perhaps animal) and did not belong to the individual, but to the whole human species (Jacobi 59-60). Furthermore, the collective unconscious parallels an eternal cosmos of correspondences to the world as a whole, an infinite field of relatedness in which all psychic beings and energies share. In this view, the collective unconscious is a precondition to consciousness (Conforti 2). According to Jung, the collective unconscious produces archetypes, or fields of energy existing outside space and time, which “organize images and ideas” from the phenomenal world into the psychic (Storr, ed. 25-26). Archetypes are emergent packets of “images and emotions” which act as an interface between the universal collective unconscious and individual consciousness (Jacobi 37). Curiously, Jung believed that the archetypes themselves are not the product of organic life, but exist a priori (Jacobi 32), as if the collective unconscious and the accompanying archetypes were a product of the Big Bang--a resonant, background radiation existing throughout all planes of cosmos and coalescing into consciousness.
While principles of physical science are insufficient to properly quantify the constructs of consciousness and the unconscious, in recent decades new data in physics has emerged which is providing a slew of interesting corollaries to the subject at hand, namely: the discovery of energy fields as the dominating organizing force in nature; the introduction of Chaos Theory and fractal geometry, and the intriguing field of Quantum Mechanics which posits that there are building blocks to the building blocks, and unlike atoms and molecules which coalesce into macroscopic matter, and which generally follow Cartesian physics including the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) where things tend to break down, these quantum forces do the exact opposite–they seek order and maintain organization beneath waves of otherwise seeming chaos. These areas of study show an enormous metaphoric prescience by Jung, whose psychic structure, including the collective unconscious and archetypes, nicely parallels many principles in Fields, Attractors, and Quantums.
Michael Conforti writes in his Field, Form, and Fate, that an energy field as found in nature is space-time specific and exists within a three dimensional matrix (41). Energy fields are pattern makers of preexistent information and energetic potentials (15). Thus, when iron filings are dropped over an electromagnetic field the iron filings “order” themselves according to the pattern emitted by the field. Such energy fields, however, seem to exist in all levels of nature, from macrocosm (gravity and electromagnetism) to microcosm (strong and weak nuclear force). So it is that sea shells spiral in a universal order matching the Fibonnaci code (13). But then again, so do elements on the periodic table as well as spirals in a galaxy (Schneider 146-156).
Energy fields go beyond physical forms in nature; recent discoveries in neurophysiology show that fields are in fact incorporated with brain activity. Karl Pribram of Radford University notes that brain nerves are so small that it is impossible for them to carry all the necessary physical impulses required for the numerous activities of the brain: “Rather, processing comes about by way of passive field-like transactions” (Yasue 1). Furthermore, within the human body, “...any two cells or systems of cells that are repeatedly active at the same time will tend to become ‘associated’, so that activity in one facilitates activity in the other” (Yasue 6). It could be said, therefore, that the human body is not just a conglomeration of interlocking parts, but is fundamentally maintained by biological and neurological energy fields.
John R. Van Eenwyk writes in Archetypes & Strange Attractors that certain patterns which persistently repeat and thus define the system of which they are apart are called attractors (53). Complex systems filled with chaotic dynamics may appear to be patternless, but Chaos Theory has shown that underlying all chaotic systems is an underlying geometric form (oft times called fractals or strange attractors). These bizarrely beautiful forms are shown to be “self-similar and scale invariant...no matter what scale we use to look at them...they always look the same” (54). Strange attractors are pattern makers, and like Jung’s archetypes they not only help define the system of energy they are in but direct the systems entire potential (23) and are “inherently self-correcting” (25). Robert Oldershaw from the University of Amherst shows that strange attractors exist on all cosmological scales, revealing that electron clouds (microcosmic fields) and stellar and planetary nebula (macrocosmic fields) both tend towards the same geometric shapes (strange attractors). (See www.amherst.edu.) As noted, these shapes reveal the ever potential, self-correcting energy which promotes organization and creation on all planes of cosmos.
Finally, a theory in quantum physics proposes that intrinsic emergence from disorder to order may occur in quantum fields (known as Quantum Field Theory or QFT). Quantum physics asks the question “How do two particles (e.g. an electron and proton) influence one another and what carries this influence? Quantum physics states there are smaller particles, called quarks, leptons, and bosons which act as force carriers. Quantum mechanics is a study of a single particle event. QFT is the idea that all forces between bodies are carried through fields as opposed to particles. Furthermore, quantum fields deal with infinite volumes and infinite potentials (Globus 137). When a quantum field causes matter to emerge into a higher state or form there exists infinite alternate possibilities just prior to the emergence. Yet as the quantums “leap” into their “chosen” reality order in the system is maintained (Thompson62). This is so because quantum fields apparently prefer ordered systems and so “select” them more often than disordered possibilities. Indeed, it is theorized that there are “order-preserving messengers” (particles called Goldstone bosons) which circumscribe equilibrium in quantum fields. This is unlike macro-physics which tend towards disorder and dissolution.
QFT has many offshoot theories, however, one of which is important for our discussion of consciousness and the unconscious. Erwin Schrodinger, one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics proposed a thought experiment known as the Schrodinger cat paradox. In this experiment, a live cat is placed in a closed box with a flask of poison and a small amount of uranium. If a random particle of uranium interacts with a device in the box the flask will be broken and the cat will die. “According to quantum mechanics, the wave function describing the cat after one hour is a superposition of a wave function representing a live cat and one representing a dead cat” (Thompson 59). Of course, multiple other possibilities may exist, let’s say seven trillion, but for the purpose of the thought experiment, either the cat will live or die. According to Schrodinger, the quantum wave function collapses (another way of saying a new order of things emerges) only when the box is opened and the contents are observed. In other words, until the box is opened the cat remains in an indeterminate state–a field of infinite possibilities unknown. The point is, in order for the quantum leap to occur there must be an observer. This notion has led Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner to suggest “that the collapse of the wave function depends on as yet unknown physical laws and that it involves the action of consciousness” (Thompson 62).
Freeman Dyson of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced study has recounted the cat paradox in this manner:
“.... I think our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of choice between quantum states which we call ‘chance’ when they are made by electrons. (Thompson, qtd. 63)
In all three paradigms, fields, attractors, and quantums, the universe is seen as something beyond just materialistic, random, or arbitrary processes based off random laws. On the contrary, the laws themselves are subsumed by the organizing principles conveyed in the paradigms discussed. Matter tends to congregate in fields. Fields themselves tend to replicate in organized order and form to the point where matter “prefers” a certain outcome (attractor). Meanwhile, quantum physics asserts that beyond matter, field, and attractor, consciousness may be required for quantum emergence; indeed, consciousness may be part of the whole and a natural consequence to the Big Bang.
Returning to Jung’s ideas of the collective unconscious and archetypes, immediately numerous connections are made metaphorically linking Jung’s psychic structure with modern physics theories. First and foremost is Jung’s notion that the unconscious is complimentary to consciousness, that is, they cannot exist without each other. Like the positive and negative ends of an electromagnetic field, they have always existed together, and in true field fashion, their attributes draw from each other. Descartes declared, “I think therefore I am.” Such a declaration cannot be made, however, without its compliment, “I am therefore I dream.”
Yet, even as corollaries, consciousness and the unconscious are both products of a much larger matrix of energy which is at the root of all energy exchanges–a quantum field of endless potential and space whose very existence is due to its own endless potential and space. In this light, the collective unconscious could be identified by comparison as the universal quantum field underlying all emerging consciousness. This comparison is easily made especially in view of Schrodinger and Dyson’s observations that the quantum field itself is literally linked to consciousness. If conscious observation and action can change the physical make up of the quantum field and determine if the cat lives or dies, then its compliment is also true, the unconscious, or in this case the collective unconscious, can help determine the state of the conscious observer to the point where he can eliminate the cat from the box.
Further metaphorical comparisons can be made between Jung’s archetypes and strange attractors. As stated, a strange attractor is a pattern a dynamic system emulates. In some models, strange attractors are self-similar and scale invariant, meaning that within the quantum field quantum leaps would reflect, on all scales, a similar outcome surrounding a nodal emergence. In this view, a Jungian archetype is a strange attractor in the quantum field of the collective unconscious. As quantums leap towards their ordered “pattern making” outcomes they “select” a pattern that eventually defines the system. This attractor becomes a focal node which itself generates a field of influence, activating other nodes and fields by association. Like the neurons of the brain, or cells and cell clusters, the collective unconscious has neurons and cells, nodes and attractors, all called archetypes–the driving fundamental units of the whole.
Even as energy fields and attractors reveal themselves in ever increasingly complex patterns, so likewise the continual and progressive emergence of the collective unconscious field and archetype attractors, if tended to, lead to individuation, where nodes of emergence are crafted in the consciousness itself; where a breakthrough from plane to plane has occurred from microcosmic quantum leaps to macrocosmic conscious living; all the while the whole cycle mirrors and perpetuates itself.
Thus, Jungian psychic structure has an excellent metaphoric parallel in the physics of fields, attractors, and quantums. Seen in this light, Jung’s schema for the psyche is both prescient and elegant and poses a closer to nature view of an individual’s psychic structure than once was thought. Jung’s insistence upon a collective field from which organizing patterns emerge and eventually interface with the conscious individual is true in physical nature, and while metaphysical nature is irreducible in strict physics terminology at the present time, it can at least be said that Jung’s schema of the psyche is a profoundly poetic similitude corresponding to profoundly poetic processes found in the natural world and cosmos.
Works Cited
Conforti, Michael. Field, Form, and Fate. Patterns in Mind, Nature, and Psyche. Woodstock, CT: Spring Publications Inc., 1999.
Ellenberger, Henri F. The Discovery of the Unconscious: The History and Evolution of Dynamic Psychiatry. USA, Basic Books, 1981.
Globus, Gordon G. Brain and Being. At the boundary between science, philosophy, language and arts. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004.
Jacobi, Jolande. Complex Archetype Symbol in the Psychology of C. G. Jung. Trans. by Ralph Manheim. New York: Princeton UP, 1959.
Jung, C. G. And C. Kerenyi. Essays on a Science of Mythology, The Myth of the Divine Child and the Mysteries of Eleusis. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1993.
Schneider, Michael S. A beginner’s Guide to Constructing the Universe: The Mathematical Archetypes of Nature, Art, and Science. New York: Harper Perennial, 1995.
Shelburne, Walter A. Mythos and Logos in the Thought of Carl Jung: the Theory of the Collective Unconscious in Scientific Perspective. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1988.
Storr, Anthony ed. The Essential Jung. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1983.
Thompson, Richard L. Maya: The World as Virtual Reality. Alachua, FL: Govardhan Hill Publishing, 2003.
www.amherst.edu. Fractal Cosmology. http://www.amherst.edu/~rlolders/stars2/index.html
www.wickipedia.com. Unconscious Mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_mind
Van Eenwyuk, John R. Archetypes & Strange Attractors: The Chaotic World of Symbols. Toronto, Canada: UP of Toronto, 1997.
Van Loocke, Philip. The Physical Nature of Consciousness. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2001.
Yasue, Kunio ed. No Matter, Never Mind. Proceedings of Toward a Science of Consciousness: Fundamental Approaches. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2002.
Posted by john at October 13, 2005 04:21 PM
