Creation history

9. — Essence, The Self, and Ether (or Aether).


In the previous chapter, among others, I was talking about the idea of “Essence”. I used the quotation from the article by Krzysztof Wirpsza entitled “Enneagram: the guide to the types”, dated 8th October 2006. I think it is worth recalling it, because according to it is very nicely written.


Enneagram nie opisuje osobowości, ale właśnie Esencję, czyli hipotetyczny budulec naszej osobowości. Substancja ta – jak sugerują twórcy systemu – jest tożsama z naszym prawdziwym Wnętrzem, a oddziaływanie na nią jest jedynym praktycznym sposobem wywołania trwałej zmiany na lepsze. Poszukując owej pra-substancji psychicznej zaczynamy się zastanawiać, jaka jest jej natura. Czy może istnieć w psychice coś oprócz myśli i emocji, i – jeśli tak, co to jest? Ścieżka Wnętrza mówi nam – tak, poniżej naszej ciągle zmieniającej się psychiki, leży niezmienny Rdzeń, którego nie można poznać przez procesy psychiczne (intelekt, emocje), ponieważ te kończą się, w miejscu, gdzie On się zaczyna! Rdzeń ów jest więc niezależny zarówno od myśli, jak i emocji.
The Enneagram does not describe personality, but Essence. That is the hypothetical building materials of our personality. This substance—as the creators of the system suggest—is identical to our real Interior, and the impact on it is the only practical way to induce a lasting change for the better. Looking for this psychic great-substance, we begin to wonder what its nature is. Can exist in psyche something except the thought and the emotion, and—if so, what is it? The Inner Path tells us—yes, below our constantly changing psyche, lies unchanging Core, which cannot be known through mental processes (intellect, emotions), because they end in the place where It starts! This Core is therefore independent of both from thoughts, and from emotions as well.
The source of above quite:
http://www.taraka.pl/enneaprzewo_C
Translated by Jacek Blach

The idea of “Essence” taken from Enneagram at some moment also associated me with the idea appearing in the works of C. G. Jung. The idea is—the Self. Jung’s the Self describes, among others, describes in the following way.


SELF. As an empirical concept, the self designates the whole range of psychic phenomena in man. It expresses the unity of the personality as a whole. But in so far as the total personality, on account of its unconscious component, can be only in part conscious, the concept of the self is, in part, only potentially empirical and is to that extent a postulate. In other words, it encompasses both the experienceable and the inexperienceable (or the not yet experienced). It has these qualities in common with very many scientific concepts that are more names than ideas. In so far as psychic totality, consisting of both conscious and unconscious contents, is a postulate, it is a transcendental concept, for it presupposes the existence of unconscious factors on empirical grounds and thus characterizes an entity that can be described only in part but, for the other part, remains at present unknowable and illimitable.

Just as conscious as well as unconscious phenomena are to be met with in practice, the self as psychic totality also has a conscious as well as an unconscious aspect. Empirically, the self appears in dreams, myths, and fairytales in the figure of the “supraordinate personality” (v. EGO), such as a king, hero, prophet, saviour, etc., or in the form of a totality symbol, such as the circle, square, quadratura circuit, cross, etc. When it represents a complexio oppositorum, a union of opposites, it can also appear as a united duality, in the form, for instance, of tao as the interplay of yang and yin, or of the hostile brothers, or of the hero and his adversary (arch-enemy, dragon), Faust and Mephistopheles, etc. Empirically, therefore, the self appears as a play of light and shadow, although conceived as a totality and unity in which the opposites are united. Since such a concept is irrepresentable—tertium non datur—it is transcendental on this account also. It would, logically considered, be a vain speculation were it not for the fact that it designates symbols of unity that are found to occur empirically.

The self is not a philosophical idea, since it does not predicate its own existence, i.e., does not hypostatize itself. From the intellectual point of view it is only a working hypothesis. Its empirical symbols, on the other hand, very often possess a distinct numinosity, i.e., an a priori emotional value, as in the case of the mandala, “Deus est circulus . . . ,” the Pythagorean tetraktys, the quaternity, etc. It thus proves to be an archetypal idea (v. Idea; Image), which differs from other ideas of the kind in that it occupies a central position befitting the significance of its content and its numinosity.

Source:
C. G. Jung, Psychological Types,
pages: 460, 461
London, 1989, Publisher: Routledge.

Below, I there is also above quotation in Polish translation.

Jaźń [Selbst]. Jako pojęcie empiryczne Jaźń określa ogólny zakres wszystkich zjawisk psychicznych, jakie zachodzą w człowieku. Pojęcie to wyraża jedność i całkowitość ogółu osobowości. Ponieważ jednak osobowość, ile że na poły nieświadoma, może zostać uświadomiona jedynie częściowo, to i pojęcie Jaźni jest potencjalnie częściowo empiryczne, przeto w równej mierze występuje jako postulat. Innymi słowy: pojęcie to ogarnia to, co doświadczalne, i to, co niedoświadczalne bądź jeszcze nie doświadczone. Cechy te pojęcie to dzieli z wieloma innymi terminami z zakresu przyrodoznawstwa, które są bardziej nomina niż ideami. Jako że całkowitość, na którą składają się treści świadome i nieświadome, jest postulatem, to określające ją pojęcie jest transcendentne, zakłada ono bowiem z racji empirycznych istnienie czynników nieświadomych, tym samym charakteryzuje pewną istotność, którą można opisać tylko częściowo, która zaś w pewnej mierze pozostaje do czasu niepoznawalna i bezgraniczna.

Ponieważ zjawiska świadomości i nieświadomości występują w praktyce, Jaźń jako Całkowitość psychiczna posiada aspekt świadomy i nieświadomy. Na płaszczyźnie empirycznej Jaźń jawi się w marzeniach sennych, mitach i bajkach w formie „osobowości nadrzędnej", na przykład w postaci króla, herosa, proroka, zbawiciela i tak dalej, czy też jako symbol Całkowitości, na przykład koło, czworokąt, quadratura circuli, krzyż i tak dalej. Ponieważ przedstawia ona complexio oppositorum, to znaczy zjednoczenie przeciwieństw, może się też jawić jako zjednoczona dwójnia, jak na przykład Dao przejawia się w formie gry yang i yin, jako para braci, heros i jego przeciwnik (smok, wrogi brat, śmiertelny wróg, Faust i Mefistofeles i tak dalej); oznacza to, że na płaszczyźnie empirycznej Jaźń jawi się jako gra światła i cienia, mimo że pojęciowo ujmowana jest jako Całkowitość — jedność, w której przeciwieństwa się jednoczą. Ponieważ pojęcie takie jest niepoglądowe — tertium non datur — to właśnie z tego względu jest ono transcendentne. Z logicznego punktu widzenia byłoby ono nawet czczą spekulacją, gdyby nie oznaczało i nie nazywało symboli jedności występujących w dziedzinie empirii.

Jaźń nie jest żadną ideą filozoficzną o tyle, o ile nie stwierdza ona własnego istnienia, to znaczy nie hipostazuje się. Intelektualnie rzecz biorąc, przysługuje jej zaledwie znaczenie hipotezy, natomiast empiryczne symbole Jaźni posiadają często znaczną numinalność (na przykład mandala), to znaczy znamionuje je pewna aprioryczna wartość uczuciowa (na przykład „Deus est circulus...", pitagorejska tertaktys, czwórca i tak dalej), tym samym zaś okazuje się, że jest to wyobrażenie archetypowe, które od innych wyobrażeń tego rodzaju różni się tym, iż odpowiednio do doniosłości swej treści i swej numinalności zajmuje centralną pozycję.

Source: Carl Gustav Jung, Typy psychologiczne, str. 522, 523, Publisher: Wydawnictwo Wrota, Warsaw 1997

Later, at a certain moment, it came to my mind that the Jungian idea of the Self can be associated with the ancient fifth Element. That is the Ether or Aether. This idea, among others, was presented by Aristotle.

Ether represents the Element from which the universe is made. The word “Ether” is also associated with quintessence (in Latin – quinta essentia, the fifth essence, the etheric fifth element, uniting the four basic elements. That is, Fire, Water, Air, and Earth).

About Ether, we can read, for example, on the website:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eter_(filozofia)

Ether, like the Self, is an Element that combines various factors into a whole. According to Aristotle Ether combines four basic Elements, that is, Fire, Water, Air, and Earth. Regarding the Mandala of Characters, we can say, then, that the Self or Ether is the Element that connects the four basic psychological states and unites them into one common state. It means this united or common state connects: Conscious and Unconscious States and Strong and Soft Self-Esteem States.


At this point, we have a very interesting outcome. It is because, it turned out that the idea of Ether, described by Aristotle, is also useful for expressing the idea of the Self, introduced by Jung.

Besides, the Self and Ether we can also associate with the Essence, taken from the Enneagram.

Of course, here we can discuss many similarities and differences between these three ideas. However, all these ideas speak about:

  • center
  • and whole.

That is, the Enneagramic Essence tells us about the center which influences the whole.

The ancient Ether tells us about a substance that fills the whole, unites and interacts with the central.

In turn, the Jungian Self tells us about the mutual penetration or unification of the center with the whole.


From the above concepts, the longest history has—Ether. Ether was analyzed by whole generations of philosophers and scientists in many fields. The particular place the Ether has in the development of physics. It is because, the Ether was an important part of many theories of the constructions of macro and micro cosmos, the nature of magnetism and electricity, the nature of light and others.

Currently, the Ether in no longer the subject of such thorough research as it was 100 years ago. Now, we simply talk about space. We have the space that fills the universe, and in this space, something is going on. In this space, one interacts with the other. So, we have “space”, “something”, and “interaction”.

What are these three factors?

  • “Something” these can be objects, bodies, particles, atoms, etc. This objects for some reasons can move or can be immobile in relation to each other. So, essential is “relation” or speaking more expertly, we are dealing here with such concepts as relativity, dependence, conditionality, etc. We have this approach thanks to, among others, theories of the relativity of Albert Einstein.
  • “Interaction”, in turn, is due to various forces and energies that work in some fields. Among these fields, the most important is the electromagnetic field. This field has, among other things, these features that previously were attributed to Ether. That is, it penetrates all, and it is one of the basic elements from which the universe is built.
  • “Space” now we see mainly as an empty space, that fills huge empty spaces between stars, planets, objects, atoms, particles, etc. Nowadays also, we do not pay too much attention to space as it was previously in the case of Ether.
    It is because Ether was the field or point of reference. In Ether something was happening, in Ether were going various processes. Ether had various features which had an impact on the processes that took place in it.
    In turn, space has not such features as previously in various theories had Ether. Space it is simply space.
    Space where something happens due to something else. The space filled with energies, fields, and bodies or objects.
    Then, space is not the reference point as in the case of Ether. Something is happening in this space, so to speak, by itself.

Generally speaking, however, the “Ether” or at the present time the “Space”, that fills the universe, were and are the subject of many research and theories. Perhaps a new theory will appear soon. A theory which will have an as big impact as the theories of relativity, which will again change our point of view of “Ether” or “Space”.

Anyway, I think that we can say that this is developing story.


Returning to the Mandala of Characters, I think that we do not have to choose any of the above points of view. We do not have to choose between “Ether” and “Space”. I think we can pick both.

It is because, in fact, the one does not rule out the other. I think that in the human psyche there can be:

  • the influence one to another both: the center and the whole of the psyche, and
  • space where various psychical processes are taking place.

Besides, the Mandala of Characters that I create here is not, in principle, a new personality theory. It is the analysis and synthesis of existing theories. For this reason, I think that combining solutions from the past and from the present can give us good results. Therefore, analyzing the “Self”, “Essence”, and “Ether” can provide us with many interesting discoveries in the field of personalities.

In the Mandala of Characters from the above terms, I will most often use the term “Self”. The Self is currently the most associated with the human psyche. So, I think, the easiest way is to use the term Self for considerations about personalities.

Please note that texts and images created by me (that is Jacek Błach) in the chapters describing the theory of Mandala of Characters (The Mandala of Characters — Theory) are marked with:
CC0 1.0 Universal
To other texts and images that I used as quotes, additional terms may apply.