In the diagram above, right and left, respectively: the “Mathematical World Plato” is equivalent to the “World Potential” (Reality Potential Aristotle); “Nothing” equals the “Quantum Vacuum”. Consciousness, then, constituting the “Act of Aristotle”, transmutes Reality Potential (Mathematical World of Plato) in factual reality whose existence is given through the phenomenal world. Matter or idea is a question about the observer’s point of view: when looking for “outside” we have the matter, when looking for “inside” have the idea. Thus, matter and mind, belong to the same “Mathematical World of Plato”, which can take as equivalent to “Unus Worlds” postulated by Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli. Finally, the consciousness (Ato of the Aristotle), postulated by Amit Goswami, is established as the foundation of all reality in the universe.


Ver nossa tradução: (ísica_Quântica_Psicologia_Profunda_e_além)


Modern science may have brought us closer to a more satisfying conception of this relationship [between psyche and physis] by setting up, within the field of physics, the concept of complementarity. It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.[12] – Wolfgang Pauli Microphysics is feeling its way into the unknown side of matter, just as complex psychology is pushing forward into the unknown side of the psyche. Both lines of investigation have yielded findings which can be conceived only by means of antinomies, and both have developed concepts which display remarkable analogies. If this trend should become more pronounced in the future, the hypothesis of the unity of their subject-matters would gain in probability. Of course there is little or no hope that the unitary Being can ever be conceived, since our powers of thought and language permit only of antinomian statements. But this much we do know beyond all doubt, that empirical reality has a transcendental background.[13] – C. G. Jung

In attempting to understand the deepest levels of reality, it is wise to take note of Jung’s observation that our concepts are imperfect instruments, and that any conceptual representations we may form of these regions of reality will likely involve antinomies, and should be taken as being essentially symbolic rather than literal. For example, progress in the conceptual understanding of the nature of quanta was accomplished by acknowledging the principle of complementarity, which states that mutually exclusive sets of concepts must be used to completely characterize quantum phenomena in all their aspects. As Marie-Louise von Franz tells us, Jung recognized that this principle of complementarity applied to psychology as well as to physics:

Bohr’s idea of complementarity is especially interesting to Jungian psychologists, for Jung saw that the relationship between the conscious and unconscious mind also forms a complementary pair of opposites.[14]

The analogy suggested here is that the wave-particle complementarity in quantum physics parallels the unconscious-conscious complementarity in psychology. Indeed, just as the wave is the unobserved aspect of the quantum and the particle is the observed aspect, so the unconscious is the unobserved aspect of the psyche and the conscious is the observed aspect. Moreover, the wave is continuously spread throughout space, while the particle has a limited location. Similarly, Jung states that


The area of the unconscious is enormous and always continuous, while the area of consciousness is a restricted field of momentary vision.[15]


The analogy goes even further. The quantum wave function represents probabilities, as contrasted to the actualized particle. Similarly, the archetypal structures of the unconscious represent fundamental potentialities of psychic manifestation, while conscious contents are actualizations of these potentialities. As von Franz explains,


What Jung calls the archetypes…could just as well be called, to use Pauli’s term, “primary possibilities” of psychic reactions.[16]


This suggests that the unus mundus behind both psyche and matter is also a continuous world of potentiality. Jung elaborates:


The common background for microphysics and depth-psychology is as much physical as psychic and therefore neither, but rather a third thing, a neutral nature which can at most be grasped in hints since in essence it is transcendental. The background of our empirical world thus appears to be in fact an unus mundus. … The transcendental psychophysical background corresponds to a `potential world’ in so far as those conditions which determine the form of empirical phenomena are inherent in it.[17]

The following table summarizes the correspondence between complementary principles in psyche and matter:

Extending the analogy between psyche and matter further, physicist Victor Mansfield points out a similarity in the manner in which potentialities are transformed into actualities in the two realms:


In physics the irreversible measurement process transforms the potentialities into actualities. What is the corresponding psychic function that transforms `the potential world…’ into the world of multiplicity? It is reflective consciousness, the association of knowing with the ego, which makes the empirical world possible and brings the transcendental into the empirical world of multiplicity. The primordial unity of the unus mundus is shattered by reflective consciousness-a point agreed upon in most mystical traditions.[18]

In quantum mechanics it’s only when an individual observes that an acausal spacetime event manifests. Our participation through measurement generates acausality. Analogously, when a unique center of consciousness, a specific individual, actualizes a possibility in the unus mundus, acausality enters our world. Introducing a particular perspective, a finite center of consciousness, inevitably brings acausality into the transition from possibilities to actualities.[19]

Similarly, Jung has made a correspondence between the indeterminacy inherent in quantum measurement and the attempt to consciously determine unconscious contents:


Any attempt to determine the nature of the unconscious state runs up against the same difficulties as atomic physics: the very act of observation alters the object observed. Consequently, there is at present no way of objectively determining the real nature of the unconscious.[20]


It should be pointed out here that Jung’s characterization of quantum measurement requires clarification. The quantum measurement does not alter the actual properties of the object being observed since these properties do not have determinate existence prior to measurement. More accurately, the measurement is the occasion for the determination of the actual properties of the object. There is thus a spontaneity that enters nature in quantum measurement. Similarly, the manifestation of unconscious contents within consciousness also has an element of spontaneity, insofar as the particular conscious image manifesting an archetype is not completely determined by previous conscious contents. This type of spontaneity is especially evident in synchronicity.

Although synchronicity phenomena and quantum phenomena have certain similarities, there are also important differences. Consider, for example, nonlocal correlations that have been experimentally observed between two separated quantum events. Like synchronicity, the observed properties of the observed quanta have an element of spontaneity in their manifestation, and the correlations between the two quanta are not due to efficient causation between the two particles. Quantum nonlocality phenomena differ from synchronicity, however, because two quantum events are both events in the outer physical world. Synchronicity, on the other hand, is necessarily a connection between an inner event and an outer event, bridging psyche and matter, and thus pointing to the unus mundus. This brings us to perhaps the most important distinction between the two phenomena, which relates to the inner psychological meaning that is essential to synchronicity. As explained by Mansfield,

In the quantum phenomenon…there is no meaning involved. …In contrast, when an archetype manifests in a synchronicity experience, meaning is the critical point.[21]


Thus, synchronicity essentially involves the manifestation of meaning in the sense of an unconscious compensation that serves an individual’s process of individuation toward wholeness. Nonlocal correlations between quanta, in contrast, are connections between two physical events, and do not involve a manifestation of inner psychological meaning.


Another more subtle distinction between synchronicity and quantum nonlocality is that the quantum correlations are scientifically repeatable and predictable, while synchronicity phenomena appear to be almost entirely spontaneous and unpredictable. A closer psychological analog to quantum nonlocality is parapsychological phenomena. Mansfield elaborates:

Parapsychological phenomena are an example of general acausal orderedness, but not of synchronicity, which I strictly define as an acausal exemplification of meaning in the inner and outer world. Parapsychological phenomena are acausal since no energy or information exchange seems responsible for the correlations measured, but they lack the meaning associated with synchronicity. Furthermore, parapsychological phenomena, like similar quantum phenomena, are “constant and reproducible”…. This reproducibility is in further contrast to the unique and unpredictable nature of the more narrowly defined synchronicity.[22]


Jung considered synchronicity to be a special case of “general acausal orderedness,” which refers to forms of order that cannot be understood in terms of efficient causality or physical determinism. For example, the causal ordering of physical phenomena according to the deterministic laws of classical physics are not acausal orderedness. Nonlocal quantum correlations, however, are an instance of acausal orderedness manifest in the physical world. Synchronicity is also an example of a specific form of acausal orderedness which involves a meaningful connection between inner and outer events, exhibiting a manifestation of the depths of the unus mundus prior to divisions between psyche and matter.

From the above comparisons between physics and psychology, we can infer that the unus mundus is a domain of unified potentiality beyond the limitations of spatial separation and causal relationships in time. Although it is prior to many structures and limitations of manifest phenomena, this domain has orderedness and meaning–it is a domain of Logos. As a result, the deep structure of the unus mundus is perhaps most appropriately represented using the symbols of mathematics. As Jung explains,

Number helps more than anything else to bring order into the chaos of appearances. It is the predestined instrument for creating order, or for apprehending an already existing, but still unknown, regular arrangement or “orderedness.” It may well be the most primitive element of order in the human mind.[23]

And von Franz amplifies Jung, pointing out that mathematical order is common to both psychological and physical domains:

The deepest and most clearly distinguishable archetypal factor, which forms the basis of psycho-physical equivalence is, the archetypal patterns of natural numbers. . . . In respect to mathematical structure, the acausal orderedness in matter is of the same kind as that in the psyche and each is continually reflected in the other.[24]

As an archetype, number becomes not only a psychic factor, but more generally, a world-structuring factor. In other words, numbers point to a background of reality in which psyche and matter are no longer distinguishable.[25]

If indeed number, and mathematics in general, reflects the order of the unus mundus, this would explain the profound mystery of how it is that mathematics, which is a phenomenon of the mind, should prove so remarkably effective in representing the physical world. This mysterious harmony between psyche and matter is implicitly present at the foundation of all physics, and testifies to the Pythagorean roots of modern science. The Pythagoreans, however, viewed mathematics as much more than a mere language of quantity. For them numbers were symbols charged with archetypal meaning. The modern view of numbers, in other words, acknowledges only the quantitative aspect of numbers and ignores their aspect as quality and meaning. Moreover, von Franz points out that numbers are not merely static forms, but also represent vibrational energies (as the Pythagoreans recognized in the intimate connection between numbers and musical tones):


Since today we see processes everywhere rather than structures or static orders, I have also proposed seeing numbers in this perspective–as rhythmic configurations of psychic energy. [26]

From time immemorial number has been used most frequently to bridge the two realms because it represents the general structure of psychic and physical energy motions in nature and therefore appears, as it were, to provide the key to the mysterious language of unitary existence, particularly in its aspect of meaning (Tao). [27]

Like quanta, numbers have two complementary aspects, both of which are required if we are to more completely understand them. They have both quantitative and qualitative aspects, both static and dynamic aspects. It is through this double aspect of number, von Franz claims, that we can see their importance as a bridge between psyche and matter:


This complementary double aspect of number (quantity and quality) is in my opinion the thing which makes it possible for the world of quantity (matter) and of quality (psyche) to interlock with each other in a periodical manner.[28]

Although von Franz associates matter with quantity, and psyche with quality, it should be noted that material vibrations, as with musical strings, are experienced as qualities or quantities depending on which aspect of the phenomenon we choose to isolate. Moreover, mathematical ideas experienced in the psyche have aspects of quantity as well as quality. Thus, it appears more appropriate to identify the qualitative aspect of number with its more subtle, vibrational component (whether physical or psychic) and the quantitative aspect of number with its more concrete, discrete component. The table of complementary aspects can then be amended to include the elements of number, as follows:


In any case, the key to the unity of psyche and matter, and to understanding the unus mundus, essentially involves the nature of number. There was at least no doubt as to this point for von Franz:


In the last analysis, the mystery of the unus mundus resides in the nature of number.[29]

The understanding suggested by the above comparisons between structures in physics and psychology, therefore, is that physis and psyche are aspects of the same reality, with mathematics as a key archetypal core of both. However, we should note that the complementarity between psyche and matter (i.e., the two columns of the table above) appears distinct from the complementarity within psyche and matter (i.e., the two rows of the table above), so we should be careful not to confuse the two.

According to von Franz, the physicist David Bohm arrived at a similar understanding of the unified ground of psyche and matter:

David Bohm also presupposes the existence of an “ocean of energy” as the background of the universe, a background that is neither material nor psychic, but altogether transcendent. . . . Ultimately, it corresponds exactly to what Jung calls the unus mundus, which is situated beyond the objective psyche and matter and which also is situated outside space-time.[30]

Bohm’s “ocean of energy” is a deep part of the implicate order of reality, which is distinguished from the explicate order. Typically, we are conscious of only these explicate features of reality, while the implicate features form an unconscious background. Bohm’s idea of the implicate order thus normally corresponds to the unconscious, while the explicate order corresponds to the conscious. He summarizes the idea of the implicate order as follows:

The essential feature of this idea was that the whole universe is in some way enfolded in everything and that each thing is enfolded in the whole. From this it follows that in some way, and to some degree everything enfolds or implicates everything, but in such a manner that under typical conditions of ordinary experience, there is a great deal of relative independence of things. The basic proposal is then that this enfoldment relationship is not merely passive or superficial. Rather, it is active and essential to what each thing is. It follows that each thing is internally related to the whole, and therefore, to everything else. The external relationships are then displayed in the unfolded or explicate order in which each thing is seen, as has already indeed been indicated, as relatively separate and extended, and related only externally to other things. The explicate order, which dominates ordinary experience as well as classical (Newtonian) physics, thus appears to stand by itself. But actually, it cannot be understood properly apart from its ground in the primary reality of the implicate order.[31]

Reality is a flowing of this whole (or, in Bohm’s terms, a holomovement) with varying degrees of implication and explication. For Bohm, reality includes both psyche and matter, and the idea of the implicate order applies to mind as well as to matter, thus providing a link between the two:

We are suggesting that the implicate order applies both to matter…and to consciousness, and that it can therefore make possible an understanding of the general relationship of these two, from which we may be able to come to some notion of a common ground of both.[32]

And von Franz agrees:

These terms of Bohm’s can be applied quite well to the ideas put forward by Jung in his area of research. For example, in that case the archetypes can be understood as dynamic, unobservable structures, specimens of the implicate order. If, on the other hand, an archetype manifests as an archetypal dream image, it has unfolded and become more “explicated.” If we go on to interpret this image using Jung’s hermeneutic technique. . . that image would “explicate” and unfold still further.[33]

It is significant to note that, as von Franz implies, unconscious content can be explicated to various degrees, making it more conscious. This suggests that there is not a clear distinction between the conscious and the unconscious, but rather a continuum. Indeed, Jung explicitly says just this:


Conscious and unconscious have no clear demarcations, the one beginning where the other leaves off. …The psyche is a conscious-unconscious whole.[34]


In other words, the psyche is a unity or whole containing an explicate region of consciousness that is neither fixed nor ultimately distinguishable from the whole. According to Bohm, however, consciousness is not necessarily coincident with the explicate order, since we can become directly aware of these subtle flowing aspects of the implicate order taking place in the background of the more concrete and explicit aspects of our experience. Nevertheless, our consciousness is often habitually fixated on the more explicit content. As Bohm explains:


One reason why we do not generally notice the primacy of the implicate order is that we have become so habituated to the explicate order, and have emphasized it so much in our thought and language, that we tend strongly to feel that our primary experience is of that which is explicit and manifest. However, another reason, perhaps more important, is that the activation of memory recordings whose content is mainly that which is recurrent, stable, and separable, must evidently focus our attention very strongly on what is static and fragmented. This then contributes to the formation of an experience in which these static and fragmented features are often so intense that the more transitory and subtle features of the unbroken flow…generally tend to pale into such seeming insignificance that one is, at best, only dimly conscious of them.[35]

Bohm seems to point out possibilities of consciousness that were not acknowledged by Jung. In particular, for Jung the unconscious is a transcendental region of reality that we can never know directly. Thus, we only know the unconscious indirectly and imperfectly from the images and other concrete manifestations that surface in consciousness. According to Bohm, however, although consciousness is habitually fixated on the explicit surface manifestations rising up from deeper implicate levels of the psyche, it is nevertheless possible to become directly conscious of these implicate orders of reality–orders of reality that Jung assumed to be forever unconscious. Thus, while Jung remains correct with regard to consciousness that is fixated exclusively on explicit orders, his statements must be qualified to allow for a consciousness that develops the capacity to be aware of subtler levels of manifestation. Such a consciousness will have the capacity for direct awareness of contents that previously would be considered transcendent, unconscious, and only indirectly knowable by inference from more explicit and concrete manifestations. The implication is that we cannot maintain a rigid or ultimate distinction between the transcendent and empirical, between the archetypes and their manifestations, or between the implicit order and the explicit order. Rather, the explicit is imbedded in and essentially integrated with the implicit, with a continuum of degrees of enfolding and unfolding uniting the two. Similarly, the manifested images of the archetypes cannot ultimately be separated from the archetypes, but must be seen as their manifested aspects that are inseparable from the archetypes in their potential-actualized wholeness.









Sobre seletynof

Escola (ensino médio):Colégio Marista Cearense;Faculdade/Universidade: Universidade Federal do Ceará;Curso:Física; Diploma:Pós-Graduação em Física;Profissão:físico e professor; Setor:Científico.

Publicado em 25 de agosto de 2007, em FISICAPSICOLOGIA. Adicione o link aos favoritos. 1 comentário.

Deixe um comentário

Preencha os seus dados abaixo ou clique em um ícone para log in:

Logotipo do

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Sair /  Alterar )

Foto do Google

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Google. Sair /  Alterar )

Imagem do Twitter

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Twitter. Sair /  Alterar )

Foto do Facebook

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Facebook. Sair /  Alterar )

Conectando a %s

%d blogueiros gostam disto: