The Syndetic Paradigm: Taoist and Hegelian psychoanalysis

[M Winther]

In the book "The Syndetic Paradigm: The Untrodden Path Beyond Freud and
Jung" (2007), Robert Aziz presents an alternative future path for
psychoanalysis. He repudiates the old way of seeing world and psyche as
predicated on "concretized or fixed forms". This leads to false
absolutes, which in turn produce false certainties. He is very critical
of Jungian psychology and its affection for "archetypilization"; how
dynamic life and "self-organizing nature" boil down to 'archetypes'
(fixed form).

Much of his critique of Jungian psychology is both pertinent and
intelligent. It is well worth a study. However, the alternative
"paradigm" that he offers is really equal to Taoism, a radical ancient
Chinese wisdom teaching. It teaches that we should flow with nature and
that our action should be consistent with natural tendencies. The
keyword in the book is "self-organizing nature", which comes near to the
concept of Tao, but also Hegel's 'Geist'. Thanks to the 'synchronistic'
capacity of nature and psyche to produce order spontaneously, we need
not have recourse to fixed form.

In my view, Jung's concept of synchronicity (meaningful coincidence) is
a failure, as it lacks empirical veracity. Nor has it a good theoretical
basis. According to Jung, synchronicity is a rare phenomenon, as it
depends on the constellation of psychic archetypes. Aziz's system,
however, predicts that it is ever-present. This is very problematic, as
it contradicts the experience of most people.

As his paradigm repudiates fixed form, it breaks not only with
psychoanalysis, but with the entire Western tradition, which is Platonic
and Christian. This is a hard pill to swallow. After all, Western
science builds on the concept of universal laws that are inviolable and
eternal. Science cannot fare without absolutes, as Einstein pointed out.
There are relativistic phenomena *only because* there exist strange
absolutes, such as the speed of light.

Aziz concludes that there is no fixed form. This is a "truth" that is
elevated to a fixed form. This self-contradiction was pointed out
already by Plato. Something is amiss. He renounces the Christian faith
(and all religion) because of its dogmatic reliance on fixed forms and
the doctrine that salvation can only be secured by way of vicarious
atonement. We cannot help ourselves, because the human will is corrupt.

Against this, he argues that we can indeed save ourselves, through the
development of "ego strength". The path forward is to integrate *all*
the complexes of the unconscious with ego consciousness. This seems like
a major undertaking, considering that our decisions, actions, emotions,
and behaviour depend on the 95 percent of brain activity that precedes
conscious awareness. We are governed by prefabricated "fixed forms";
patterns of thought and feeling, complexes and instincts. In fact,
unconscious predetermination is a blessing without which we couldn't
function.

Aziz's Taoist and Hegelian version of psychoanalysis doesn't work, even
though his critique of psychoanalysis carries weight. His analysis of
Jung's dream of his father (pp.274ff) reveals how he looks through the
warped lens of his own theory. It is a fixed form that skews his
interpretation. Such a lapse, according to his own view, is a cardinal
sin. He ignores the fact that Jung's father, the parson, draws great
wisdom out of the bible, which is so profound that Jung cannot follow
him. Then they both bow down to a biblical equivalent of Christ. These
are obvious references to "biblical truths" and the "fixed form" of
Christ. But he doesn't see it. He sees only a father complex that needed
to be integrated.

Mats Winther | http://www.two-paths.com

[JJones]

Im dont see why archetypes are fixed forms! Archetypes have infinite faces to say so. What is fixed form is the shape they acquire in the products of human culture.

Also synchronicity it has proof in i ching to quote only this source. Please read Jungs introduction to the book. See also the golden scarab story.