Is chess a Jungian archetype in the collective unconscious?

Sort:
Knightly_News

Virtually alone among the depth psychologists of the 20th century, Jung rejected the tabula rasa theory of human psychological development, believing instead that evolutionary pressures have individual predestinations manifested in archetypes. For Jung, "the archetype is the introspectively recognizable form of a priori psychic orderedness". These images must be thought of as lacking in solid content, hence as unconscious. They only acquire solidity, influence, and eventual consciousness in the encounter with empirical facts."

The archetypes form a dynamic substratum common to all humanity, upon the foundation of which each individual builds his own experience of life, developing a unique array of psychological characteristics. Thus, while archetypes themselves may be conceived as a relative few innate nebulous forms, from these may arise innumerable images, symbols and patterns of behavior. While the emerging images and forms are apprehended consciously, the archetypes which inform them are elementary structures which are unconscious and impossible to apprehend. Being unconscious, the existence of archetypes can only be deduced indirectly by examining behavior, images, art, myths, religions, dreams, etc. They are inherited potentials which are actualized when they enter consciousness as images or manifest in behavior on interaction with the outside world.

ivandh

Sometimes a piece is just a piece.

Knightly_News

What I'm saying is, do you have piece of mind?

Anyway, so you're not Jung at heart.  Maybe you're more aligned with Freud, and his nefarious Freudian slip. That's where you say one thing, but mean your mother.

AbstractAlao

I think chess is an abstract representation of the human experience in relation to the unseen (I.e Angels Demons And God. The pawn are humans who only view life in a straight line. The rooks, Bishop's and knights represent the Archtypes. Each of these pieces though powerful can only ever be what they are. Where as a pawn can become any of them plus the queen and be in union to sever the King GodHead.

airantrobo

http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/esotericism_chess.html

hapless_fool
now_and_zen wrote:

What I'm saying is, do you have piece of mind?

Anyway, so you're not Jung at heart.  Maybe you're more aligned with Freud, and his nefarious Freudian slip. That's where you say one thing, but mean your mother.

I see exactly what you did there.