International Academy of Analytical Psychology, Portugal.
Biosystems. 2021 Oct;208:104501. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2021.104501. Epub 2021 Aug 6.
As a clinical psychologist, I observe stereotyped formulas of behavior in action every day in the consulting room, despite differences in age, race, or culture; they present themselves as codified rules or typical modes of behavior in archetypical situations. Such circumstances coincide with what C.G. Jung defended: the existence of archetypes stored in an inherited/phylogenetic repository, which he called the collective unconscious - somewhat similar to the notion of an ethogram, as shown by ethology. Psychologists can use a perspective to facilitate understanding the phenomenon: the code biology perspective (Barbieri 2014). This approach can help us recognize how these phenomenological events have an ontological reality based not only on the existence of organic information but also on the existence of organic meaning. We are not a tabula rasa (Wilson 2000): despite the explosive diversification of the brain and the emergence of conscience and intentionality, we observe the conservation of basic instincts and emotions (Ekman 2004; Damasio 2010) not only in humans but in all mammals and other living beings; we refer to the neural activity on which the discrimination behavior is based, i.e., the neural codes. The conservation of these fundamental set-of-rules or conventions suggests that one or more neural codes have been highly conserved and serves as an interpretive basis for what happens to the living being who owns them (Barbieri 2003). Thus, archetypes' phenomenological reality can be understood not as something metaphorical but as an ontological (phylogenetic) fact (Goodwyn 2019). Furthermore, epigenetic regulation theories present the possibility that the biomolecular process incorporates elements of the context where it takes place; something fundamental to understand our concept - the archetype presents itself as the mnesic remnant of the behavioral history of individuals who preceded us on the evolutionary scale. In short: brains are optimized for processing ethologically relevant sensory signals (Clemens et al., 2015). From the perspective of the corporeal mind (Searle 2002), in this paper, we will show the parallels between code biology and the concept of the archetype, as Jung defended it and as it appears in clinical practice.
作为一名临床心理学家，我每天在咨询室里观察到刻板的行为模式，无论年龄、种族或文化如何；它们表现为规范的规则或典型的行为模式，出现在典型情境中。这种情况与 C.G.荣格所捍卫的观点相符：存在储存在遗传/系统发育库中的原型，他称之为集体潜意识——有点类似于动物行为学所展示的行为谱的概念。心理学家可以使用一种视角来促进对现象的理解：代码生物学视角（Barbieri 2014）。这种方法可以帮助我们认识到这些现象事件如何具有本体论的现实性，不仅基于有机信息的存在，还基于有机意义的存在。我们不是白板（Wilson 2000）：尽管大脑的爆炸性多样化以及意识和意向性的出现，我们仍然观察到基本本能和情感的保守性（Ekman 2004；Damasio 2010），不仅在人类中，而且在所有哺乳动物和其他生物中；我们指的是基于该行为的区分的神经活动，即神经代码。这些基本规则集或约定的保守性表明，一个或多个神经代码得到了高度的保守，并为拥有它们的生物所发生的事情提供了解释基础（Barbieri 2003）。因此，原型的现象学现实性可以被理解为不是隐喻性的，而是本体论的（系统发育的）事实（Goodwyn 2019）。此外，表观遗传调控理论提出了生物分子过程纳入其发生的环境元素的可能性；这对于理解我们的概念非常重要——原型本身就是我们之前在进化尺度上的个体行为历史的记忆痕迹。简而言之：大脑是为处理与行为相关的感官信号而优化的（Clemens 等人，2015）。从肉体思维的角度来看（Searle 2002），在本文中，我们将展示代码生物学与原型概念之间的相似之处，就像荣格所捍卫的那样，以及它在临床实践中的表现。
