The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, pg 74

“Greek gods cannot create anything out of nothing, unlike the Hebrew god of Genesis. In the relationship between the god and the hero in their dialectic, there are the same courtesies, emotions, persuasions as might occur between two people. The Greek god never steps forth in thunder, never begets awe or fear in the hero, and is as far from the outrageously pompous god of Job as it is possible to be. He simply leads, advises, and orders. Nor does the god occasion humility or even love, and little gratitude. Indeed, I suggest that the god-hero relationship was – by being its progenitor – similar to the referent of the ego-superego relationship of Freud or the self-generalized other relationship of Mead. The strongest emotion which the hero feels toward a god is amazement or wonder, the kind of emotion that we feel when the solution of a particularly difficult problem suddenly pops into our heads, or in the cry of eureka! from Archimedes in his bath.”

The Origins and History of Consciousness, pg 300

“The tendency of unconscious contents to swamp consciousness corresponds to the danger of being ‘possessed’; it is one of the greatest ‘perils of the soul’ even today. A man whose consciousness is possessed by a particular content has an enormous dynamism in him, namely that of the unconscious content; but this counteracts the centroversion tendency of the ego to work for the whole rather than for the individual content.”

To Have or to Be?

Only to the extent that we decrease the mode of having, that is of nonbeing – i.e., stop finding security and identity by clinging to what we have, by ‘sitting on it,’ by holding onto our ego and our possessions – can the mode of being emerge. ‘To be’ requires giving up one’s egocentricity and selfishness, or in words often used by the mystics, by making oneself ‘empty’ and ‘poor.’”

To Have or to Be?

“Having refers to things and things are fixed and describable. Being refers to experience, and human experience is in principle not describable. What is fully describable is our persona – the mask we each wear, the ego we present – for this persona is in itself a thing. In contrast, the living human being is not a dead image and cannot be described like a thing. In fact, the living human being cannot be described at all. Indeed, much can be said about me, about my character, about my total orientation to life. This insightful knowledge can go very far in understanding and describing my own or another’s psychical structure. But the total me, my whole individuality, my suchness that is as unique as my fingerprints are, can never be fully understood, not even by empathy, for no two human beings are entirely alike.”

To Have or to Be?

“Perhaps the most striking example of today’s consumer-buying phenomenon is the private automobile. Our age deserves to be dubbed ‘the age of the automobile,’ four whole economy has been built around automobile production, and our whole life is greatly determined by the rise and fall of the consumer market for cars.

“To those who have one, their car seems like a vital necessity; to those who do not yet own one, especially people in the so-called socialist states, a car is a symbol of joy. Apparently, however, affection for one’s car is not deep and abiding, but a love affair of somewhat short duration, for owners change their cars frequently; after two years, even after just one, an auto owner tires of the ‘old car’ and starts shopping around for a ‘good deal’ on a new vehicle. From shopping around to purchase, the whole transaction seems to be a game in which even trickery is sometimes a prime element, and the ‘good deal’ is enjoyed as much as, if not more than, the ultimate prize: that brand-new model in the driveway.

“Several factors must be taken into account in order to solve the puzzle of the seemingly flagrant contradiction between the owners’ property relationship to their automobiles and their so-short-lived interest in them. First, there is the element of depersonalization in the owner’s relationship to the car; the car is not a concrete object that its owner is fond of, but a status symbol, an extension of power – an ego builder; having acquired a car, the owner has actually acquired a new piece of ego. A second factor is that buying a new car every two years instead of, say, every six increases the buyer’s thril of acquisition; the act of making the new car one’s own is a kind of defloration – it enhances one’s sense of control, and the more often it happens, the more thrilled one is. The third factor is that frequent car buying means frequent opportunities to ‘make a deal’ – to make a profit by the exchange – a satisfaction deeply rooted in men and women today. The fourth factor is one of great importance: the need to experience new stimuli, because the old stimuli are flat and exhausted after but a short while. In an earlier discussion of stimuli, I differentiated between ‘activating’ and ‘passivating’ stimuli and suggested the following formulation: ‘the more ‘passivating’ a stimulus is, the more frequently it must be changed in tensity and/or in kind; the more ‘activating’ it is, the longer it retains its stimulating quality and the less necessary is change in intensity and content.’ The fifth and most important factor lies in the change in social character that has occurred during the past century and a half, i.e., from the ‘hoarding’ to the ‘marketing’ character. While the change does not do away with the having orientation, it does modify it considerably.”

To Have or to Be?

“Our ego is the most important object of our property feeling, for it comprises many things: our body, our name, our social status, our possessions (including knowledge), the image we have of ourselves and the image we want others to have of us. Our ego is a mixture of real qualities, such as knowledge and skills, and of certain fictitious qualities that we build around a core of reality. But the essential point is not so much what the ego’s content is, but that the ego is felt as a thing we each possess, and that this ‘thing’ is the basis of our sense of identity.”

The Origins and History of Consciousness, pg 404

“The identification of the ego with consciousness robs it of contact with the unconscious and thus of psychic wholeness.  Consciousness can now claim to represent unity, but this unity is only the relative unity of the conscious mind and not that of the personality.  Psychic wholeness is lost and is replaced by the dualistic principle of opposites which governs all conscious and unconscious constellations.”

The Origins and History of Consciousness, pg 400

“Characteristic of the process of differentiation in childhood is the loss and renunciation of all the elements of perfection and wholeness, which are inherent in the psychology of the child so far as this is determined by the pleroma, the uroboros.  The very things which the child has in common with the man of genius, the creative artist, and the primitive, and which constitute the magic and charm of his existence, must be sacrificed.  The aim of all education, and not in our culture alone, is the expel the child from the paradise of his native genius and, through differentiation and the renunciation of wholeness, to constrain the Old Adam in the paths of collective usefulness.

“…The drying up of imagination and of creative ability, which the child naturally possesses in high degree, is one of the typical symptoms of impoverishment that growing up entails.  A steady loss of the vitality of feeling and of spontaneous reactions in the interests of ‘sensibleness’ and ‘good behavior’ is the operative factor in the conduct now demanded of the child in relation to the collective.  Increase in efficiency at the cost of depth and intensity is the hallmark of this process.

“On to the ontogenetic plane there now ensue all the developments which we have described as indispensable for ego formation and the separation of the conscious and unconscious systems.  The child’s primarily transpersonal and mythological apperception of the world becomes limited owing to secondary personalization, and is finally abolished altogether.  This personalization is necessary for the growth of personality now beginning and is effected with the help of ties to the personal environment upon which the archetypes are at first projected.  As the personal ties grow stronger, the archetype is gradually replaced by the imago, in which personal and transpersonal characteristics are visibly blended and active.”

The Origins and History of Consciousness, pg 400

“Development in the first half of life is marked by two decisive crises, each of which corresponds to a fight with the dragon.  The first crisis is characterized by the encounter with the problem of the First Parents and by the formation of the ego.  It is enacted between the ages of three and five, and psychoanalysis has made us familiar with certain aspects and forms of this parental encounter, under the guise of the Oedipus complex.  The second crisis is puberty, when the dragon fight has to be fought out again on a new level.  Here the form of the ego is finally fixed with the support of what we have called ‘heaven.’  That is to say, new archetypal constellations emerge, and with them a new relation of the ego to the self.”

The Origins and History of Consciousness, pg 389

“The line runs, as we saw, from the archetype as an effective transpersonal figure to the idea, and then to the ‘concept’ which one ‘forms.’  A good example of this is the concept of God, which now derives wholly from the sphere of consciousness – or purports to derive from it, as the ego is deluded enough to pretend.  There is no longer anything transpersonal, but only personal; there are no more archetypes, but only concepts; no more symbols, only signs.

“This splitting off of the unconscious leads on the one hand to an ego life emptied of meaning, and on the other hand to an activation of the deeper-lying layers which, now grown destructive, devastate the autocratic world of the ego with transpersonal invasions, collective epidemics, and mass psychoses.  For an upsetting of the compensatory relationship between conscious and unconscious is not a phenomenon to be taken lightly.  Even when it is not so acute as to bring on a psychic sickness, the loss of instinct and the overaccentuation of the ego have consequences which, multiplied a millionfold, constellate the crisis of civilization.”