A Comparison and Application of Imaginal Psychology and Deconstruction: Theory and Ubung

 A Comparison and Application of Imaginal Psychology and Deconstruction: Theory and Praxis Essay

A COMPARISON AND APPLICATION OF IMAGINAL PSYCHOLOGY AND DECONSTRUCTION: THEORY AND ACCION by

Ruben Souchak

Trail D

Imaginal Psychology

CP 512

Kathee Miller

twenty-three March 2010

As I visit our website on Imaginal Psychology and seek to bring up it to my own personal expansion and sensible therapeutic affluence, I am drawn to my past. I use always been a word person, somewhat on the literal side, and guilty of the charge of calcifying the " meaning” of words and phrases. During school and graduate school, I actually explored these long-held patterns. I browse post-structuralist advocates such as Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida. Their tips caused myself to problem the foundations of linguistics and real truth. This research has helped me to understand the underpinnings of Imaginal Psychology. One way that we relate to Imaginal Psychology can be through the similarities with one of these theorists: Jacques Derrida. Derrida has attracted me for quite some time and his Deconstruction method provides interesting parallels to Imaginal Psychology. 1 basic information of Deconstruction is that this attempts to show that any text is not a discrete whole nevertheless contains a lot of irreconcilable and contradictory symbolism; that virtually any text consequently has more than one interpretation; that the textual content itself links these understanding inextricably; the incompatibility of those interpretations is irreducible; and therefore that an interpretative reading simply cannot go beyond a specific point.

(" Deconstruction”, n. d. )

Review this to Imaginal Psychology, with its emphasis on the polymorphous/polytheistic appreciation of images The many-sidedness of human nature, the variety of viewpoints actually within a single individual, needs the broadest possible range of fundamental structures. When a psychology really wants to represent faithfully the soul's actual range, then it may not beg problem from a new by insisting, with monotheistic prejudgment, upon unity of personality.

(Hillman, 1975, p. xx)

When Hillman is a psychologist and Derrida a philosopher, they both are mostly concerned with the concept of language as meaning-making. Jordan V. Adams claims " Derrida and Hillman will reverse the logic of oppositions as well as the order of priorities which have privileged the signified within the signifier, the concept over the image” (Adams, 1992, p. 248). This posture, that of signifier over signified, is a primary tenet of post-structuralism, and one that equally Hillman and Derrida talk about. Although the major medium is different for each (images for Hillman, literary text messaging for Derrida), both exhibit similar concepts—a. ) multiplicity (Hillman's polytheistic perspective, différance for Derrida), b. ) the lack of a coherent strength " wholeness” to texts and mind; and c. ) the endless capacity for new pictures and connotations to be developed. Understanding these types of similarities is actually a useful difference, as it converges with my background in literary theory and provides me personally with hyperbole of Imaginal Psychology. From this, one prevalent point is the fact there is benefit in de-literalizing dreams or perhaps images while " things-unto-themselves. ” Instead of fitting a preconceived idea, as proof for some Fact, or demonstrating how a dream or image shows something like " Progress, ” looking at images with equal benefit encourages attention. With this frame, I understand Imaginal Psychology's value in fostering " beginner's brain, ” especially in the realm of totally free association. The critique of free association as practiced is that it is not " free. ” Instead, a lot of have followed a " bread crumb” method, where each photo builds after the next, impacting some " path” where there is a near-deterministic quality towards the exploration (" a causes b, leading to c, which must mean that d is next”). As part of Imaginal Psychology's analyze, this is a misguided ethic of offering primacy for the notion of individuation or Self, which intrudes upon the process of image-making. This critique would not deny the process...

Popular