Projection

Jungian analyst Stuart Potter on how what we see is shaped by the eye, the mind, and the mystery in between.

Everything that we understand, we understand through projection. Projection is the manner in which the psyche adapts objects to a form that is understandable. Projection in this sense is an important Jungian concept. It might be explained accordingly: there is an external objective reality; there is the back of the eye where objects register an image (that is, the way the eye creates an observation); and the reconciliation of the two is the psyche.

Photo by Nathan Dumlao on Unsplash

There is a reference in the “Tavistock Lectures” to the color yellow, as an example of projection. It means that yellow doesn’t exist in itself, rather, it is the way the psyche distinguishes yellow from other wavelengths of color to understand what it sees in relation to other objects.

Jung comments (100 years ago) that ultimately physics approaches psychology, and that psychology approaches physics. This is an effort to say that a singular understanding will allow for a variable defined by the point of view of the observer. Ultimately there is no purely objective view, there is no Archimedean point where objectivity may be established. Instead, there would be an equation that includes one point of view as part of the observation.

Currently on Amazon Prime there is a series of lectures related to quantum mechanics. In the 4th episode there is a comment that objective material includes a probability of a particular observation. In other words, the application of an equation that explains the behavior of objective material does not lead to an indisputable observation in all cases. Rather the expected conclusion can only be seen a certain percentage of the time while at other times other material interferes.

With reference to scientific observation, Jung would say if you focus on A you miss something about the behavior of B, you missed something about the phenomenon that occurs. The documentary situates this idea historically in Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which suggests that physics should concern itself only with what is observable, rather than with what is “actually happening.” If so, what is observable will only include the desired focus of A, a certain percentage of the time. This idea suggests that understanding always includes a variable: the observer’s point of view. Our observations must include the perspective of the observer as part of the equation.

For those who are interested in the topic of the convergence of psychology and physics referred to by Jung, the book “The Ever-present Origin” by Jean Gebser is especially relevant. Gebser proposes that consciousness is on the verge of becoming “aperspectival.” Following stages of “mystical consciousness,” “mythical consciousness,” around the time of Leonardo Da Vinci consciousness became capable for the first time of conceptualizing perspective, and consciousness could represent a three-dimensional landscape. Gebser asserts that consciousness is on the brink of adding another dimension and becoming aperspectival.

The topic of subjectivity and the limits of observation also figures prominently in the work of physicist David Bohm, as explored in the film Infinite Potential. Bohm suggests that perception is always limited, akin to the view from a moving chairlift: the observer is in motion, and the view is constantly changing. Some things are revealed, others are hidden, depending upon the moving position of the chair and the objects such as trees momentarily interrupting a direct line of vision. In any dialogue, such as analysis, there is always a degree of understanding and a degree of misunderstanding. This serves as a reminder to all participants to remain open, to think and feel from the ground of their own individual experience.