榮格 Carl G. Jung: 人類及其象徵 Man and His Symbols
:
第一章 潛意識研究 Approaching The Unconscious
夢的重要性 The importance of dreams
榮格 Carl G. Jung (1875–1961)
語言和文字都是人類用以表達思想、感情的手段。人類語言充滿象徵，而且時常使用一些並非有準確描述意義的符號或意象，有些甚至只是英文字首的組合，例如，UN(聯合國)，UNICEF(聯合國兒童基金會),UNESCO(聯合國教科文組織);其他如人們熟悉的商標，專利藥品，徽章和標記等等。雖然它們本身沒有什麼意義，但其通用性和約定俗成便賦予了它們可識別的意義。因此，它們只是用來表示所代表的物體的符號，而不是象徵。
Man uses the spoken or written word to express the meaning of what he wants to convey. His language is full of symbols, but he also often employs signs or images that are not strictly descriptive. Some are mere abbreviations or strings of initials, such as UN, UNICEF, or UNESCO; others are familiar trade marks, the names of patent medicines, badges, or insignia. Although these are meaningless in themselves, they have acquired a recognizable meaning through common usage or deliberate intent. Such things are not symbols. They are signs, and they do no more than denote the objects to which they are attached.
所謂象徵，是指術語、名稱，甚至是人們日常生活中常見的景象。但是，除了傳統的明顯的意義之外，象徵還有著特殊的內涵。它意味著某種對我們來說是模糊、未知和遮蔽的東西。例如，我們大家都知道，在希臘克利特島上的許多紀念碑都有用雙手斧砍下的圖案，可是我們卻不瞭解它的象徵意義。再如，一個去過英國的印度人回家後對朋友們說，英國人崇拜動物，因為他在英國的一些古老教堂中發現有鷹、獅子和公牛的圖象。他不知道(許多基督教徒也不知道)，這些動物是四福音的象徵，源於《聖經》中的《以希書》，而這又與埃及太陽神賀拉斯(Horus)與他的四個兒子的神話類似。此外，還有象輪子和十字等眾所周知的東西，在某種情況下，具有象徵的意義。確切地說，它們所象徵的還是有爭議的，有待思考的問題。
What we call a symbol is a term, a name, or even a picture that may be familiar in daily life, yet that possesses specific connotations in addition to its conventional and obvious meaning. It implies something vague, unknown, or hidden from us. Many Cretan monuments, for instance, are marked with the design of the double adze. This is an object that we know, but we do not know its symbolic implications. For another example, take the case of the Indian who, after a visit to England, told his friends at home that the English worship animals, because he had found eagles, lions, and oxen in old churches. He was not aware (nor are many Christians) that these animals are symbols of the Evangelists and are derived from the vision of Ezekiel, and that this in turn has an analogy to the Egyptian sun god Horus and his four sons. There are, moreover, such objects as the wheel and the cross that are known all over the world, yet that have a symbolic significance under certain conditions. Precisely what they symbolize is still a matter for controversial speculation.
因此，當一個字或一個意象所隱含的東西超過明顯的和直接的意義時，就具有了象徵性。象徵有著廣泛的“潛意識”方面，並且從沒有被準確地加以規定或充分地解釋過，也沒有誰能做到這一點。在對象徵的探討中，會導致形成超出理性範圍的觀念。車輪可能會令我們想到“神性”的太陽的概念，但這時，理性定會認為這種想法不適當;人類不可能界定“神性”的存在。由於我們理智的限度，當我們說某物具有“神性”時，實際上只是賦予某物一個名字，這或許是基於某個信條，而絕非基於確實的論據。
Thus a word or an image is symbolic when it implies something more than its obvious and immediate meaning. It has a wider "unconscious" aspect that is never precisely defined or fully explained. Nor can one hope to define or explain it. As the mind explores the symbol, it is led to ideas that lie beyond the grasp of reason. The wheel may lead our thoughts toward the concept of a "divine" sun, but at this point reason must admit its incompetence; man is unable to define a "divine" being. When, with all our intellectual limitations, we call something "divine," we have merely given it a name, which may be based on a creed, but never on factual evidence.
我們不斷運用象徵的名詞來表示我們無法下定義，或者不能完全理解的概念，乃是因為有無數事情人類還難以認識。這也是所有宗教運用象徵語言或意象的原因之一。這種有意識地使用象徵，只是極為重要的心理事實中的一個方面:人類仍在潛意識地、本能地以夢的形式創造象徵。
Because there are innumerable things beyond the range of human understanding, we constantly use symbolic terms to represent concepts that we cannot define or fully comprehend. This is one reason why all religions employ symbolic language or images. But this conscious use of symbols is only one aspect of a psychological fact of great importance: Man also produces symbols unconsciously and spontaneously, in the form of dreams.
掌握這一點並不容易，但如果我們想更多地知道人類的思想活動方式，就必須掌握它。只要我們稍有反思，就會認識到，人類從沒有充分認知或者徹底理解任何事。人能看、聽、觸摸、品味，可是無論看得多遠，聽得多清楚，觸摸所感覺到的以及嘗試的結果完全取決於他的感官特性，這就限制了他對周圍世界的認知。當然，如用望遠鏡可以擴大視野，用電子助聽器可以加強聽覺，這些科學儀器的應用固然可以彌補一些感官上的不足，但即便是最精密的儀器，也只是把極遠或極細小的東西盡收眼底，使微弱的聲音較為清楚可聞而已。在某種意義上說，儀器只能使人達到必然的邊緣，而意識的知識絕不可能超越這個邊緣。
It is not easy to grasp this point. But the point must be grasped if we are to know more about the ways in which the human mind works. Man, as we realize if we reflect for a moment, never perceives anything fully or comprehends anything completely. He can see, hear, touch, and taste; but how far he sees, how well he hears, what his touch tells him, and what he tastes depend upon the number and quality of his senses. These limit his perception of the world around him. By using scientific instruments he can partly compensate for the deficiencies of his senses. For example, he can extend the range of his vision by binoculars or of his hearing by electrical amplification. But the most elaborate apparatus cannot do more than bring distant or small objects within range of his eyes, or make faint sounds more audible. No matter what instruments he uses, at some point he reaches the edge of certainty beyond which conscious knowledge cannot pass.
此外，我們對現實的感知還有潛意識的方面。首先是這樣一個事實，當真實的現象、景象和聲音對我們的感官起作用時，它們多多少少就會從客觀世界傳送到精神世界，而在精神世界，它們變成心靈事件，其最終本質是不可知的(因為心靈無法知道其自身的心靈本質)。因此，每一經驗都包含著無數的未知因素。更不用說，每個具體的對象在某種特定情況下永遠是未知的，因為我們無法知道物自身的最終本質。
There are, moreover, unconscious aspects of our perception of reality. The first is the fact that even when our senses react to real phenomena, sights, and sounds, they are somehow translated from the realm of reality into that of the mind. Within the mind they become psychic events, whose ultimate nature is unknowable (for the psyche cannot know its own psychical substance). Thus every experience contains an indefinite number of unknown factors, not to speak of the fact that every concrete object is always unknown in certain respects, because we cannot know the ultimate nature of matter itself.
因此，肯定有許多事情我們並沒有有意識地注意到，也就是說，它們仍深深地存在於意識的閾限之下。它們曾發生過，但它們被潛意識所吸收，而沒有被我們有意識地注意到。只有在直覺或連續的冥思苦想後，最終才意識到它們的確發生過。儘管最初我們或許忽視了它們對情感和生命的重要性，但事後作為一種回想會從潛意識中湧現出來。
Then there are certain events of which we have not consciously taken note; they have remained, so to speak, below the threshold of consciousness. They have happened, but they have been absorbed subliminally, without our conscious knowledge. We can become aware of such happenings only in a moment of intuition or by a process of profound thought that leads to a later realization that they must have happened; and though we may have originally ignored their emotional and vital importance, it later wells up from the unconscious as a sort of afterthought.
比如說，它可能以夢的形式出現。總的說來，任何事物的潛意識方面都在夢中向我們呈現。當然，顯現出來的只是象徵的意象，而非理性的思考。從歷史發展來看，正是有了夢的研究，才使心理學家能探究意識的心理事件的潛意識方面。
It may appear, for instance, in the form of a dream. As a general rule, the unconscious aspect of any event is revealed to us in dreams, where it appears not as a rational thought but as a symbolic image. As a matter of history, it was the study of dreams that first enabled psychologists to investigate the unconscious aspect of conscious psychic events.
一些心理學家根據上述證明，推論人有潛意識心靈的存在——雖然許多科學家和哲學家否認它的存在。他們天真地反對這種推論意味著兩個“主體”的存在，或者(以常用語來說)在同一個體中具有兩種人格。相當正確，這正是那一推理的含義所在。而且，這也是現代人所厭倦的，因為有許多人為這種人格的分裂所苦惱。這不是病理學的症狀，而是可以在任何時間和地點觀察到的普遍現象。人的左手不知道右手在做什麼，這不是精神變態，而是一般潛意識的症狀，是全人類無法否認的共同傳承。
It is on such evidence that psychologists assume the existence of an unconscious psyche though many scientists and philosophers deny its existence. They argue naively that such an assumption implies the existence of two "subjects," or (to put it in a common phrase) two personalities within the same individual. But this is exactly what it does imply-quite correctly. And it is one of the curses of modern man that many people suffer from this divided personality. It is by no means a pathological symptom; it is a normal fact that can be observed at any time and everywhere. It is not merely the neurotic whose right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. This predicament is a symptom of a general unconsciousness that is the undeniable common inheritance of all mankind.
人類意識發展的過程從遠古(發明文字時的公元前四千年左右)到今天的文明狀態是很緩慢和艱難的。這一進化絕非完善，因為人類精神的大部分領域仍然在黑暗的籠罩之下。我們所謂的“心靈”與我們的意識及其內容並不是統一的。
Man has developed consciousness slowly and laboriously, in a process that took untold ages to reach the civilized state (which is arbitrarily dated from the invention of script in about 4000 B.c.). And this evolution is far from complete, for large areas of the human mind are still shrouded in darkness. What we call the "psyche" is by no means identical with our consciousness and its contents.
任何否認潛意識存在的人，事實上都是在設想我們現在的心靈知識是完整的。這種說法顯然是錯誤的。就好象我們設想我們已完全知道有關自然宇宙中我們應知道的一切一樣。我們的心靈是自然的一部分，而自然中不可思議的事無窮無盡。因此，我們無法為心靈或自然下定義。我們只能盡全力闡明我們所認為的它們的本來面目，說明它們如何起作用。如果我們避而不談醫學界所積累的研究證據，我們就有了充足的邏輯根據來反對諸如“沒有潛意識存在”的論點。懷有這種想法的人不過是繼承了傳統的“厭新症”—對那些新的或未知東西的一種恐懼而已。
Whoever denies the existence of the unconscious is in fact assuming that our present knowledge of the psyche is total. And this belief is clearly just as false as the assumption that we know all there is to be known about the natural universe. Our psyche is part of nature, and its enigma is as limitless. Thus we cannot define either the psyche or nature. We can merely state what we believe them to be and describe, as best we can, how they function. Quite apart, therefore, from the evidence that medical research has accumulated, there are strong grounds of logic for rejecting statements like "There is no unconscious." Those who say such things merely express an age-old "misoneism"—a fear of the new and the unknown.
反對人類心靈存在的未知部分的觀點是有著歷史緣由的。意識是最新的自然獲得物，它仍處於“試驗”狀態。它很脆弱，受到一些特殊危險的威脅，而且易受損害。正象人類學家所指出的，在原始人中間最普遍的精神錯亂被他們稱為“喪失靈魂”—正如這個詞的意義所示，它意味著嚴重的意識崩潰，即(用專業術語來說)意識分裂。
There are historical reasons for this resistance to the idea of an unknown part of the human psyche. Consciousness is a very recent acquisition of nature, and it is still in an "experimental" state. It is frail, menaced by specific dangers, and easily injured. As anthropologists have noted, one of the most common mental derangements that occur among primitive people is what they call "the loss of a soul"-which means, as the name indicates, a noticeable disruption (or, more technically, a dissociation) of consciousness.
在這種人中，他們意識的發展水平與我們的是不同的。“靈魂”(或心靈)不被認為是統一的。許多原始人設想，人除了他自身的靈魂外還有一個“叢林靈魂”。這種“叢林靈魂”的化身是野生動物或樹木，借此，人類個體有某種心靈統一性。著名的法國民族學家盧西恩(Lucien Levy—Bruhl)稱此為“神秘參與”。後來，他在惡意的批評下不用這個詞了，但我認為對他的批評是錯誤的。這是一個眾所周知的心理事實:一個人可能與其他人或客體具有潛意識的統一性。
Among such people, whose consciousness is at a different level of development from ours, the "soul" (or psyche) is not felt to be a unit. Many primitives assume that a man has a "bush soul" as well as his own, and that this bush soul is incarnate in a wild animal or a tree, with which the human individual has some kind of psychic identity. This is what the distinguished French ethnologist Lucien Lévy-Brühl called a "mystical participation." He later retracted this term under pressure of adverse criticism, but I believe that his critics were wrong. It is a well-known psychological fact that an individual may have such an unconscious identity with some other person or object.
這種同一性在原始人中有許多變化形式。如果“叢林靈魂”是一個動物，這個動物本身被認為是該人的兄弟。例如，一個人的兄弟是鰐魚，他在有鰐魚的河裡游泳時就不會遇難。如果“叢林靈魂”是棵樹，這棵樹就被認為對與其有關的人具有父母般的權力。在這兩種情況下，對“叢林靈魂”的損害，被解釋為對與其有關的人的損害。
This identity takes a variety of forms among primitives. If the bush soul is that of an animal, the animal itself is considered as some sort of brother to the man. A man whose brother is a crocodile, for instance, is supposed to be safe when swimming a crocodile-infested river. If the bush soul is a tree, the tree is presumed to have something like parental authority over the individual concerned. In both cases an injury to the bush soul is interpreted as an injury to the man.
在有些部落中，人被認為有多個靈魂。這種信仰表明瞭一些原始人的情感，即他們每一個人都由幾種相關而又有差昇的因素所組成。這意味著個體心靈並非穩固地統一在一起;相反，在未受抑制的情緒衝突下，心靈很容易在外在的威脅下被擊碎。
In some tribes, it is assumed that a man has a number of souls; this belief expresses the feeling of some primitive individuals that they each consist of several linked but distinct units. This means that the individual's psyche is far from being safely synthesized; on the contrary, it threatens to fragment only too easily under the onslaught of unchecked emotions.
當我們熟悉了人類學家的研究時，便知道這種情形與我們發達的文明並非毫不相干，儘管似乎應該如此。我們也會變得分裂，失去統一性。我們可能被情緒佔有或支配，或變得失去理性，無法回憶有關自己或與他人有關的重要事情。因此人們會問:“你被什麼鬼迷住了?”我們談到能“自我調節，但自我調節是一個顯著的不易具備的美德。我們可能認為自己已在自我調節之下;但一個朋友可能很輕易地把我們自己並不知道的事說出來。
While this situation is familiar to us from the studies of anthropologists, it is not so irrelevant to our own advanced civilization as it might seem. We too can become dissociated and lose our identity. We can be possessed and altered by moods, or become unreasonable and unable to recall important facts about ourselves or others, so that people ask: "What the devil has got into you?" We talk about being able "to control ourselves," but self-control is a rare and remarkable virtue. We may think we have ourselves under control; yet a friend can easily tell us things about ourselves of which we have no knowledge.
毋庸置疑，即使在我們自認為高度文明的發展水平上，人類意識仍沒有達到一個合理的連續程度，而且還很脆弱，易於分裂。這種分離人的部分精神的能力，的確是個有價值的特徵。它使我們能在某一特定時間集中精力，排除可能干擾我們注意力的事情。但是，有意識地規定分離與暫時壓抑個人的心靈部分之間是有區別的。這種情況只會自然出現，不為人所感知或同意，甚至與個人意願相違背。前者是文明的成就，後者是原始人的“喪失靈魂”，甚至會引起神經衰弱。
Beyond doubt, even in what we call a high level of civilization, human consciousness has not yet achieved a reasonable degree of continuity. It is still vulnerable and liable to fragmentation. This capacity to isolate part of one's mind, indeed, is a valuable characteristic. It enables us to concentrate upon one thing at a time, excluding everything else that may claim our attention. But there is a world of difference between a conscious decision to split off and temporarily suppress a part of one's psyche, and a condition in which this happens spontaneously, without one's knowledge or consent and even against one's intention. The former is a civilized achievement, the latter a primitive "loss of a soul," or even the pathological cause of a neurosis.
即使在今天，意識的統一性仍是個值得懷疑的事，意識極容易被分裂。控制自己感情的能力可能是一個人所渴求的，同時，又是另一個人所置疑的，因為它可能削弱社會交往的色彩、熱情和多變性。
Thus, even in our day the unity of consciousness is still a doubtful affair; it can too easily be disrupted. An ability to control one's emotions that may be very desirable from one point of view would be a questionable accomplishment from another, for it would deprive social intercourse of variety, color, and warmth.
【文本來源 - 榮格：人類及其象徵 (張舉文 榮文庫譯) 遼寧教育出版社出版, 1988
C. G. Jung: The Archetypes And The Collective Unconscious, Second Edition Translated By R. F. C. Hull, 1968】