Evolution, Jung, and Theurgy:

VI. Conclusions

Figure to left: Hekate Triformis.

It will be apparent that there are many loose ends in what I’ve said, but I hope the basic theses are correct.  Of course, the trouble with interdisciplinary arguments, such as mine, is that they have something for everyone to attack!  Hence, Jungian psychologists may be unhappy with an apparent reduction of psychical reality to material phenomena.  Evolutionary neuroethologists may be unhappy to see their scientific theories tainted with the supposed mysticism of Jungian psychology and Neoplatonism.  Neoplatonists, in turn, may be unhappy to see this philosophy “psychologized” on one hand, and apparently reduced to biology on the other.  However, there is no cause for these concerns, as they all result from misapprehensions of my proposal.

Mind and matter, which correspond τὸ πέρας and τὸ ἄπειρον, Limit and the Unlimited, should be understood as two sides of the same Inexpressible One.  Thus, since Jungian psychology and evolutionary neuroethology are describing two aspects of the same phenomena, each may inform and reinforce the other.  Both reconcile Neoplatonism with contemporary science, and confirm its basic insights and practices, while suggesting resolutions of some issues.  In fact, the three hang together, like the three faces of Hekate, into a consistent body of theory and practice.

Figure above: Plato, Darwin, Jung, and Lorenz.

Go to table of contents

Return to MacLennan’s home page

Send mail to Bruce MacLennan / MacLennan@cs.utk.edu

This page is www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/papers/EJT/VI.html
Last updated: 2006-04-22.