I found this mushroom, an Elegant Stinkhorn, in the wood mulch of the garden. The photo is “suggestive” to say the least. And, just as I said these last few words to myself, it dawned on me that the “suggestiveness” would not be the same for all. For some, likely there is nothing “suggested” at all by the image – it is what it is, plain and simple.
There was a question raised by John Ferric, one of those who read this blog, which was simple enough: “Are you implying that my psyche is connected to(a part of) the collective unconscious?” I replied: “The short answer, in my opinion, is yes..” Well, John asked another question: “Can you explain how that connection works?” That got me to thinking about an article I wrote for an educational journal about a decade ago that addressed this very topic. And, as I sat this morning with a fresh cup of coffee in the living room looking out the window at the falling rain, I began to plan my response to John. As I wandered around my head, the answer only became longer and longer, at least a large book of text in length. What I was creating in my head was a theory. And, since it is just a theory, my response is changing and returning to the first response because this is what I think/feel/intuit not something that I can profess because of any particular set of facts.
“We still know so very little about the psyche that it is positively grotesque to think we are far enough advanced to frame general theories. We have not even established the empirical extent of the psyche’s phenomenology: How can we dream of general theories? No doubt theory is the best cloak for lack of experience and ignorance, but the consequences are depressing: bigotedness, superficiality, and scientific sectarianism.” (Van Eenwyk, Archetypes and Strange Attractors: The Chaotic World of Symbols, p. 15)
This makes me sit back and want to make sure that whatever I say here is just what I think, what I perceive as the thread of reality as I experience it, a reality that is much bigger than I will ever be.