Usually (and naively) we think that suffering is an external and objective thing (or event) that impacts upon us. This seems self evident as we read the newspaper, listen to friends or reflect on our own experience. We all suffer, or at least appear to suffer.
However, in many ways, suffering is actually an activity or event that that arises within us as a response to an external thing or event. From this perspective, we can conclude that suffering is the ego’s response to an external thing or event, which produces a range of feelings or emotions - which include pain and hopelessness. Suffering is therefore akin to non-adaptation, non-acceptance, or rejection by the ego toward the external object or thing.
Suffering is also therefore very personal – one persons suffering might not be anothers and vice versa. However, because the external and objective things which produce pain and suffering are real and pervasive (and the attendant ego responses are very real), suffering is real.
In many ways the ego’s response is one of a “clash of opposites”, namely between ego and objective-external thing. Jung calls a clash of opposites enantiodromia, which means 'being torn asunder into pairs of opposites' (Jung 1977, p. 73). However, enantiodromia eventually produces 'the emergence of the unconscious opposite in the course of time' (Jung 1971, p. 425).
From this we can conclude that in times of hopelessness, its opposite – genuine hope emerges. This reflects the paradoxical nature of life, and represents the basis for Jung’s view that 'there is no illness that is not at the same time an unsuccessful attempt at a cure' (Jung 1966b, p. 46), and that 'happiness easily turns into suffering even as the most intense suffering can produce a sort of superhuman happiness. They are a pair of opposites that are indispensable to life' (Jung 1973a, p. 247, 6 August 1938). Alternatively, it is only when there is no hope that genuine hope actually has meaning.
Consequently, we can conclude that happiness and suffering are related opposites, where 'suffering is the normal counter-pole to happiness' (Jung 1966a, 78-79).
If we accept that happiness and suffering are ultimately projections of the soul, and not external objective things, we in no way diminish the reality or importance of either, but produce an opportunity to withdraw the projection. In this way, conscious reflection on both happiness and suffering, can produce a growth in consciousness, whilst the unconscious acceptance of either will bind us. Happiness and suffering are then attributes of our relationship to the object, in which identification produces unconsciousness and differentiation produces growth.
Therefore, it seems to me that our ego, wishing to assert itself through identification, produces an affect which blinds us to the object. Happiness, because of its pleasurable and positive nature, blinds us to the object, and suffering turns us away from it.
Furthermore, it seems to me that the very rejection of the object that suffering represents, contains the seeds of adaptation, because momentarily, the ego is exposed – and through the action of rejection, an appreciation of the objective nature of the object is possible. This is not to be confused with an ego-based understanding or rationale of the encounter, because that necessarily lies within the domain of the ego. What I am saying here is in the moment of suffering, we are confronted with something quite other, something which not only confronts the ego, but confounds it as well. If it were not other, then the ego would identify with it and we would not be challenged. The very response of suffering, presumes otherness, and any awareness of otherness, represents an opportunity for growth.
From this we can see that in suffering we are presented with an opportunity to behold other, and we are either unaware of this opportunity (bound by projection to the ego’s response) or challenged to accept that which confronts and confounds (not identified with the object).
Following on from this line of thinking, happiness and suffering also stem from our worldview, which in many ways is an unconscious complex. Those things which we value positively produce happiness and acceptance, and those things that we do not value or reject tend to produce suffering. Moreover, the hopelessness of suffering often arises when we are confronted with an object that does not fit our worldview; and it is consequently rejected by the ego. The relationship between worldview and suffering is connected to the relative notions of good and evil.
We can see from this line of reasoning that the ego is central to the twin notions of happiness and suffering. Jung states that ‘it is the ego that doubts, hesitates, lingers, has notions of all sorts…the ego wants explanations always in order to assert its existence. Try to live without the ego. Whatever must come to you, will come’ (Jung 1973a, p. 427, 28 April 1946).
Implicit in the experience of happiness and suffering is then the notion of other. Happiness results from identification with other and suffering from non-identification with other. If the locus of attention is directed toward the experiencing ego, then happiness is to be pursued and suffering is to be avoided. Similarly, the self-asserting ego will justify and rationalise that which produces happiness, but fail in respect to suffering. That is why suffering is avoided. However, if the “other” status of both happiness and suffering is acknowledged, then the experiencing ego is subordinated.
Growth results from a proper relation to the object, and healing is that which occurs when we progressively achieve or restore such a relation. As Jung says ‘healing comes only from what leads the patient beyond himself and beyond his entanglements in the ego’ (Jung 1967a, p. 302).
We can see therefore that happiness carries the risk that we will be unconscious of the object and be bound by feelings produced through identification. Similarly, suffering carries the risk that we will be unconscious of the object and be bound by feelings produced through rejection. In both cases however, the object is real, and we have the opportunity to voluntarily surrender our ego in recognition of the otherness of the object.
Why is this important? As Jung says 'man is never helped in his suffering by what he thinks of for himself; only supra-human, revealed truth lifts him out of his distress' (Jung 1970b, p. 344). The otherness of the object actually contains our hope of growth, not the self-ness of the subject (ego).
As Jung says, 'Life itself follows from springs both clear and muddy' (Jung 1971a, pp. 244), and suffering is certainly muddy. It represents the abrogation of apparent clarity by the ego in favour of apparent muddiness, which is paradoxical, because in that moment, things become clearer, in a strange sort of way.
So, we have seen that suffering is real, it confronts and confounds the ego, and the ego naturally rejects it. Why then would there be suffering? If the ego were never presented with suffering, then it would be largely unconscious and therefore incomplete, and as Jung states, ‘life calls not for perfection but for completeness; and for this the "thorn in the flesh" is needed, the suffering of defects without which there is no progress and no ascent’ (Jung 1968b, p. 159). So a life without suffering is incomplete, because the ego must be continually in a state of identification with the objects in encounters, bound in unconsciousness.
Consequently, we can conclude with Jung that as 'there is no birth of consciousness without pain' (Jung 1954, p. 193), suffering is needed for the development of consciousness. The development of consciousness is described frequently by Jung as both a blessing and a suffering. Individuation requires suffering, and perhaps more emphatically, Jung asserts that 'the cause of the suffering is spiritual stagnation, or psychic sterility' (Jung 1970b, pp. 330-331). Suffering does for the ego what it knows needs to be done but can't do for itself.
Sources:
Jung, C. G. 1954, The Development of Personality, Bollingen Series, vol. 17, trans. Baynes, H. G., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Jung, C. G. 1966a, The Practice of Psychotherapy, Collected Works, vol. 16, trans. Hull, R. F. C., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Jung, C. G. 1966b, The Spirit in Man, Art, And Literature, Bollingen Series, vol. 15, trans. Baynes, H. G., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Jung, C. G. 1967a, Alchemical Studies, Bollingen Series, vol. 13, trans. Baynes, H. G., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Jung, C. G. 1970b, Psychology and Religion : West and East, Bollingen Series XX, vol. 11, trans. Hull, R. F. C., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Jung, C. G. 1971, Psychological Types, Bollingen Series, vol. 6, trans. Baynes, H. G., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Jung, C. G. 1973a, C G Jung Letters, vol. 1, Adler, G. (ed), trans. Hull, R. F. C., Routledge & Kegan Paul, London
Jung, C. G. 1977, Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, Bollingen Series, vol. 7, trans. Hull, R. F. C., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Sharp, D., 1991, Jung Lexicon: A Primer of Terms & Concepts, online: New York Association for Analytical Psychology, http://www.nyaap.org/index.php/id/7
However, in many ways, suffering is actually an activity or event that that arises within us as a response to an external thing or event. From this perspective, we can conclude that suffering is the ego’s response to an external thing or event, which produces a range of feelings or emotions - which include pain and hopelessness. Suffering is therefore akin to non-adaptation, non-acceptance, or rejection by the ego toward the external object or thing.
Suffering is also therefore very personal – one persons suffering might not be anothers and vice versa. However, because the external and objective things which produce pain and suffering are real and pervasive (and the attendant ego responses are very real), suffering is real.
In many ways the ego’s response is one of a “clash of opposites”, namely between ego and objective-external thing. Jung calls a clash of opposites enantiodromia, which means 'being torn asunder into pairs of opposites' (Jung 1977, p. 73). However, enantiodromia eventually produces 'the emergence of the unconscious opposite in the course of time' (Jung 1971, p. 425).
From this we can conclude that in times of hopelessness, its opposite – genuine hope emerges. This reflects the paradoxical nature of life, and represents the basis for Jung’s view that 'there is no illness that is not at the same time an unsuccessful attempt at a cure' (Jung 1966b, p. 46), and that 'happiness easily turns into suffering even as the most intense suffering can produce a sort of superhuman happiness. They are a pair of opposites that are indispensable to life' (Jung 1973a, p. 247, 6 August 1938). Alternatively, it is only when there is no hope that genuine hope actually has meaning.
Consequently, we can conclude that happiness and suffering are related opposites, where 'suffering is the normal counter-pole to happiness' (Jung 1966a, 78-79).
If we accept that happiness and suffering are ultimately projections of the soul, and not external objective things, we in no way diminish the reality or importance of either, but produce an opportunity to withdraw the projection. In this way, conscious reflection on both happiness and suffering, can produce a growth in consciousness, whilst the unconscious acceptance of either will bind us. Happiness and suffering are then attributes of our relationship to the object, in which identification produces unconsciousness and differentiation produces growth.
Therefore, it seems to me that our ego, wishing to assert itself through identification, produces an affect which blinds us to the object. Happiness, because of its pleasurable and positive nature, blinds us to the object, and suffering turns us away from it.
Furthermore, it seems to me that the very rejection of the object that suffering represents, contains the seeds of adaptation, because momentarily, the ego is exposed – and through the action of rejection, an appreciation of the objective nature of the object is possible. This is not to be confused with an ego-based understanding or rationale of the encounter, because that necessarily lies within the domain of the ego. What I am saying here is in the moment of suffering, we are confronted with something quite other, something which not only confronts the ego, but confounds it as well. If it were not other, then the ego would identify with it and we would not be challenged. The very response of suffering, presumes otherness, and any awareness of otherness, represents an opportunity for growth.
From this we can see that in suffering we are presented with an opportunity to behold other, and we are either unaware of this opportunity (bound by projection to the ego’s response) or challenged to accept that which confronts and confounds (not identified with the object).
Following on from this line of thinking, happiness and suffering also stem from our worldview, which in many ways is an unconscious complex. Those things which we value positively produce happiness and acceptance, and those things that we do not value or reject tend to produce suffering. Moreover, the hopelessness of suffering often arises when we are confronted with an object that does not fit our worldview; and it is consequently rejected by the ego. The relationship between worldview and suffering is connected to the relative notions of good and evil.
We can see from this line of reasoning that the ego is central to the twin notions of happiness and suffering. Jung states that ‘it is the ego that doubts, hesitates, lingers, has notions of all sorts…the ego wants explanations always in order to assert its existence. Try to live without the ego. Whatever must come to you, will come’ (Jung 1973a, p. 427, 28 April 1946).
Implicit in the experience of happiness and suffering is then the notion of other. Happiness results from identification with other and suffering from non-identification with other. If the locus of attention is directed toward the experiencing ego, then happiness is to be pursued and suffering is to be avoided. Similarly, the self-asserting ego will justify and rationalise that which produces happiness, but fail in respect to suffering. That is why suffering is avoided. However, if the “other” status of both happiness and suffering is acknowledged, then the experiencing ego is subordinated.
Growth results from a proper relation to the object, and healing is that which occurs when we progressively achieve or restore such a relation. As Jung says ‘healing comes only from what leads the patient beyond himself and beyond his entanglements in the ego’ (Jung 1967a, p. 302).
We can see therefore that happiness carries the risk that we will be unconscious of the object and be bound by feelings produced through identification. Similarly, suffering carries the risk that we will be unconscious of the object and be bound by feelings produced through rejection. In both cases however, the object is real, and we have the opportunity to voluntarily surrender our ego in recognition of the otherness of the object.
Why is this important? As Jung says 'man is never helped in his suffering by what he thinks of for himself; only supra-human, revealed truth lifts him out of his distress' (Jung 1970b, p. 344). The otherness of the object actually contains our hope of growth, not the self-ness of the subject (ego).
As Jung says, 'Life itself follows from springs both clear and muddy' (Jung 1971a, pp. 244), and suffering is certainly muddy. It represents the abrogation of apparent clarity by the ego in favour of apparent muddiness, which is paradoxical, because in that moment, things become clearer, in a strange sort of way.
So, we have seen that suffering is real, it confronts and confounds the ego, and the ego naturally rejects it. Why then would there be suffering? If the ego were never presented with suffering, then it would be largely unconscious and therefore incomplete, and as Jung states, ‘life calls not for perfection but for completeness; and for this the "thorn in the flesh" is needed, the suffering of defects without which there is no progress and no ascent’ (Jung 1968b, p. 159). So a life without suffering is incomplete, because the ego must be continually in a state of identification with the objects in encounters, bound in unconsciousness.
Consequently, we can conclude with Jung that as 'there is no birth of consciousness without pain' (Jung 1954, p. 193), suffering is needed for the development of consciousness. The development of consciousness is described frequently by Jung as both a blessing and a suffering. Individuation requires suffering, and perhaps more emphatically, Jung asserts that 'the cause of the suffering is spiritual stagnation, or psychic sterility' (Jung 1970b, pp. 330-331). Suffering does for the ego what it knows needs to be done but can't do for itself.
Sources:
Jung, C. G. 1954, The Development of Personality, Bollingen Series, vol. 17, trans. Baynes, H. G., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Jung, C. G. 1966a, The Practice of Psychotherapy, Collected Works, vol. 16, trans. Hull, R. F. C., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Jung, C. G. 1966b, The Spirit in Man, Art, And Literature, Bollingen Series, vol. 15, trans. Baynes, H. G., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Jung, C. G. 1967a, Alchemical Studies, Bollingen Series, vol. 13, trans. Baynes, H. G., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Jung, C. G. 1970b, Psychology and Religion : West and East, Bollingen Series XX, vol. 11, trans. Hull, R. F. C., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Jung, C. G. 1971, Psychological Types, Bollingen Series, vol. 6, trans. Baynes, H. G., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Jung, C. G. 1973a, C G Jung Letters, vol. 1, Adler, G. (ed), trans. Hull, R. F. C., Routledge & Kegan Paul, London
Jung, C. G. 1977, Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, Bollingen Series, vol. 7, trans. Hull, R. F. C., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Sharp, D., 1991, Jung Lexicon: A Primer of Terms & Concepts, online: New York Association for Analytical Psychology, http://www.nyaap.org/index.php/id/7