I’ve decided to revamp my blog again. I’d been looking over it and it’s hard to believe I started this blog nearly seven years ago, when I was only eighteen years old. This blog has told a story, and it’s very fascinating to look back and see my own evolution and adventures as a curious (and at times very stupid) human being.
I have gone through many phases which all show themselves on this blog – yet again I feel I have started a new phase. I have been through a massive journey, and I doubt I have barely even begun. I am a spiritual seeker – that is obvious. I am thirsty for knowledge, and hungry for the nourishing food that heals our minds and bodies.
Today I wanted to touch on a couple of topics that I used to write heavily about, and to note down what I believe now compared to them. Also to note how my understandings have changed and are now currently morphing as I gain new information with which to orient my world around.
One particular thing I remember writing a lot about – a long time ago, were the archetypal projections of the psyche, as theorised by Carl Jung. I had this idea that there was this ultimate state of being which was a unified whole and which humanity in general had to work towards: Individuation. I started off by finding my ‘animus’ in my dreams, working through my ‘shadow’, and finding my ‘Self’.
I remember in my cognitive behavioural therapy last year, I told my therapist, Adriana, about my conceptions of finding my ‘Self’, and she tried to get me to see that my ideas of the Self were very static and hardly flexible at all. Whilst my therapy only lasted a few months, it was incredibly helpful and opened my mind to new ways of seeing. It helped especially that Adriana was specifically a psycho-spiritual therapist.
Now when I think about archetypes, in fact when I think about anything, I try to use nature as my guide. Remember that phrase “as above so below”? Well, whilst that’s not the mantra I repeat to myself, I think that the inherent meaning holds a lot of truth. You see, these days, I’m a naturalist, and I don’t believe that anything possibly spiritual can be apart from the natural realm and beyond the scope of scientific scope.
Well, when it comes to archetypes, you see archetypes everywhere. There is the father archetype, the mother archetype, the child archetype, the evil archetype, the good archetype (more on that later), the point being here is that there are billions of humans who all carry and express these potential archetypes at some times.
I relate this in a way to theism – why would there be a single deity, God, when in nature there are always many of one particular species? There must be many gods too. Likewise, there must be many archetypal father gods, archetypal mother goddesses, archetypal children, etc. It doesn’t mean that there is only one deity with these perfectly segregated archetypes.
So, back to good and evil. The same thing applies. When I think about demons and angels, why are they considered different ‘species’? They are traditionally described as being the same species, the only thing separating them is their morality. But life isn’t as black and white as all that. If it were so, why are there not two hugely different divides of human beings, one evil and one good? It’s not like that. Most people are on the grey spectrum.
And so, I don’t believe there are such a thing as angels and demons (if they exist). It’s more like if there were actually a deified race, they would be diverse, with morality all over the spectrum. So where then does that leave angels and demons? If the divide is erased, then all I have left to conclude is that they are principal archetypes of morality. But even then, it’s not like you use one completely over the other. It’s not like a father who is also a teacher uses one completely over the other. The archetypes are all used interdependently between each other.
Therefore I think the archetype naming of angel and demon is arbitrary, and I think back to how Jung used to class his good/evil archetypes and I believe he used the terms the ‘shadow’ and the ‘Self’. The Self not being some ideal thing we are supposed to attain, but instead the positively aligned aspects of ourselves being expressed as opposed to the negatively expressed aspects.
There is no wrong or right answer here, there is no end goal, it is just more about how we decide we want to express ourselves, personally, in our own unique combination. And throughout my journey my archetypal aspects have shifted a lot in some ways, and preferred the same ways of operating in other ways. For example, my own archetypes that have always liked continued expression are the seeker and the healer. Sometimes too I have expressed the child, especially during my dissociative state, and lately these days I find myself expressing the mother as I now have my very own furbaby.
Sometimes I too find myself expressing the shadow, and other times too I find myself expressing the Self. The Self in my eyes now being nothing more than that other aspect of us that sometimes likes expression. It is not an independent entity, not a soul as in a higher self. However, it may like to express itself differently compared to another person’s inherent understanding of their own Self.
This is probably quite a different take to Carl Jung’s original hypothesis, and to be honest my views on this will probably continue to morph and evolve as I grow, and as I explore more of who I am as a person. I have given up trying to become something that was never meant to be an end goal in the first place, and I have stopped spiritualising something that was at most a mathematical equation to explain how the psyche works.
Beyond that, I also wanted to talk about twin flames and soulmates. I used to be heavily obsessed with the concept, after thinking time after time that I’d met many of mine over the years, and I even came up with many of my own propositions as to how that could be, how it works, and why it happened. I guess, in some ways I still carry some of my more practical views, but in other ways I don’t follow the concept at all.
The idea of a soulmate or twin flame is that you have this perfect one out there waiting for you, and that one day you will meet, energetically merge, and become this power couple on earth spirituality. My previous understanding of the concept before my psychotic breakdown (or spiritual emergency or whatever you want to call it) was that a twin flame could be absolutely anyone, and that it was our complete but momentary compatibility that caused such an intense connection of telepathy and love.
Well, that’s a very spiritual view of the whole concept. These days I try to naturalise everything as much as possible, even whilst admitting there are just some things neither I or science cannot yet explain (empathy for example). Yet that doesn’t mean I believe there isn’t a rational explanation, just that we haven’t found it yet. Yes, I have experienced some very weird connections within intimate relationships, where I have had that intense empathy and telepathy, and I can’t science it in any way.
But, put all that aside, I think that physically my previous understanding of the concept is still right in a sense, in that our ‘soulmate’ is literally anyone we have a complete but yet temporary identification with. And temporary can mean a few seconds, or many years, it depends. But we all change and grow, and who we completely identify with one year may not be the same as the next year. So then we have many potential soulmates or twin flames.
The thing is however, I am not seeing this romanticised anymore as is done within the new age movement. I am forgetting all about rosy-lensed beliefs and just sticking to the practical facts here. My boyfriend is my soulmate/twin-flame because we get on really great. That’s it! Those who used to be my soulmates (twin flames/whatever) were back then, but they’re not anymore. That’s the simple truth.
So then, do I believe a soulmate/twin-flame is a spiritual thing? No. I no longer believe in soul groups, energy, or the idea of ‘union’. Do I believe my boyfriend Graeme is the same soul as me, or a similar soul, or part of a soul group, or whatever? No, I don’t. I believe that right now we are closest in the way we experience the world and as a result perhaps some of our neuronal processes and pathways are very similar, perhaps creating the illusion of mind reading (through the activation of mirror neurons – look it up).
So yes, you can see how I’ve taken some of my previous ideas on twin flames and soulmates and applied it to my currently reality in a less spiritualised way. So I can be said to be taking the same approach to the question, but in a different manner: A more naturalised manner.