Through the Round Window: Review of Carol Leader’s ‘Blake and the Therapists’, by Rod Tweedy

A Review of ‘Unfolding the Mythological Unconscious: An Illuminated Talk’ by Carol Leader

Screenshot 2022-07-07 at 20.10.46

Screen Shot 2021-05-10 at 10.39.26

Introduction: William Blake and Therapy

“Was William Blake mad?” is the usual question that comes up in any discussion of Blake and therapy. What was fascinating about psychoanalytic psychotherapist Carol Leader’s talk at the Blake Society event at the Freud Museum was the way in which she explored this connection between ‘Blake and the Therapists’ on a new and much more profound level. Indeed, her presentation was so thought-provoking that it makes you wonder why more hasn’t been written on this connection. As Tim Heath noted in his introduction to the talk, “whenever you converse with William Blake, whenever you dive into his work, it immediately becomes apparent why Blake intimated the coming of therapy.”

Screenshot 2022-07-18 at 12.07.32

An illustration of the relationship of the four Zoas from Blake’s Milton a Poem, suggesting “a complex and vital dynamic within the human psyche”

Blake’s exploration of the four “Zoas” and their emanations, for example, present us with a complex and vital dynamic within the human psyche, and indeed both Blake’s visual art and his written work revolve around these inner psychodynamics. “I rest not from my great task,” Blake proclaims at the start of his poem Jerusalem, “To open the Eternal Worlds, to open the immortal Eyes/Of Man inwards into the Worlds of Thought”.

But relatively few critics and commentators have really picked up on this or explored its repercussions in relation to twentieth-century psychoanalytic thought.

S. Foster Damon’s superb Blake Dictionary contains some hints – typically acute but brief and tantalizing suggestions – of how Blake anticipates later psychoanalytic ways of thinking: his fourfold psychology prefiguring “Jung’s fourfold analysis of man”, for example, and Damon’s acute observation that Blake’s proto-Oedipal dynamics (such as those between Orc, Los, and Enitharmon) are a “startling anticipation of Freud’s Oedipus complex”.

Screenshot 2022-07-17 at 19.26.45

“Blake’s proto-Oedipal dynamics”. President of the British Psychoanalytical Society and former child psychiatrist Ronald Britton repeatedly draws on Blake’s work, such as in Belief and Imagination (1998) and Sex, Death, and the Superego (2003), but always curiously misrepresents and “misdiagnoses” him. Or perhaps not so curiously, as much of Blake’s work is a profound attack on the ego-based form of psychology Britton upholds and promulgates.

Perhaps even more suggestive is the way in which Blake’s presentation of the “splitting” of the psyche antedates Ferenczi’s analysis of how the mind reacts to the experience of trauma through dissociation and fragmentation. I once worked in a bookshop that specialized in psychoanalysis and psychotherapy and was often struck by how many books had Blake illustrations on the covers of them – testimony, I think, to the resonance that Blake’s work, both visual and verbal, has for this audience.

But few psychoanalysts and psychotherapists themselves have written about Blake or focused on these resonances, and those that do are often disappointing. Ronald Britton, for example, a psychoanalyst and indeed former President of the British Psychoanalytical Society, has commented on Blake in his book Belief and Imagination, but he curiously misrepresents Blake as an “epistemic narcissist” who exhibits “what in psychoanalysis has been called infantile megalomania” – which makes you wonder how a profession devoted to understanding people can get people so wrong.

Screen Shot 2021-05-10 at 10.39.26

Blake and Jung

One of the central concerns of Carol Leader’s wonderful presentation was to explore the intimate and profound connections that exist between Blake’s ideas and images and the work of modern depth psychology, and in particular the ground-breaking work of Jung.

Screenshot 2022-07-19 at 15.20.41

Blake the radical psychologist, 100 years before Freud and Jung. It is remarkable how many psychoanalytic and psychotherapeutic books have Blake illustrations on the covers of them

Depth psychology focuses on the unconscious, and on the unconscious processes that operate as part of therapy – something which immediately puts it in alignment with Blake’s own creative process, which, as he himself observed, is “addressed to the Imagination … & but mediately to the Understanding or Reason”. In this sense, as Shelley similarly noted, poetry acts above and beyond consciousness, and engages with the “inner” world, even as it is manifests in the “outer”. The contours of this inner world are not linear, Leader reminds us, but multi-dimensional, “multi-layered”, like a piece of paper folded up – in fact, she gave us all a piece of paper to fold up at the start of her talk (“to be folded in as many folds as possible”), and which was used as a visual aid to suggest how these layers function.

Screenshot 2022-07-19 at 15.01.00

Screenshot 2022-07-19 at 15.08.19_flip

Above: Freud’s view of the mind, with the ego on top and supposedly “conscious”. Below: Blake’s view of the mind: we are essentially imaginative beings, and consciousness operates “above and beyond” the slow, rational, explicit forms of egoic thinking that Freud and Jung made the mainstay of their psychological theories. Blake corrects the picture, by re-inverting their view of the relationship between reason and imagination, or between the emissary and the master in McGilchrist’s powerful metaphor.

She started to open up this occluded and usually eclipsed internal world by turning to one of Blake’s last and greatest works, his Illustrations to the Book of Job. A hundred years before Freud and Jung, Leader observed, Blake presents us with “an incredibly powerful understanding about how the inner world works, and the types of images the inner world produces”. For example, we meet a God-like figure who is absolutely terrifying (“the Freudians would call this the archaic superego”), and who, in Job’s nightmare, is shown with cloven hoofs, hovering menacingly over the dreamer.

722px-Job's_Evil_Dreams-butts (1)

“We meet a God-like figure who is absolutely terrifying (‘the Freudians would call this the archaic superego’), and who, in Job’s nightmare, is shown with cloven hoofs, hovering menacingly over the dreamer.” Job had made the sadistic superego, Nobodaddy (who is also the enforcer of the so-called “reality principle” – the reality of the domination of Urizen over the Id) his God. He needs to wake up. Image: ‘Job’s Evil Dreams’ from Blake’s Illustrations of the Book of Job.

Through this illustration Blake suggests that the God who Job has passively obeyed and believed was ‘good’ might in fact be a demonic and usurping Power. Job’s nightmare gives form to his internal processes and powers, and in this the function of his vision relates to a key theme of depth psychology, which is the importance of dreams both in introducing such potent and revelatory symbols and also in providing or injecting a sense of “fluidity” into the imaginative lives of those patients who often seem to be “stuck” in a situation, or fixated by an idea or complex. In these states the mind often finds itself in a position, terrifyingly, where it is unable to move or free itself from its destructive processes, it’s own “mind-forg’d manacles”. Leader presents Blake’s Book of Job very much in these terms: as a terrifying, frozen nightmare giving way to a more fluid “dream”, through the creation or emergence of a symbol, or symbols, into consciousness – which the conscious mind can then grasp or hold on to in order to explore these latent and hidden powers. In this way, symbols and symptoms often coalesce, or become synonymous.

In discussing the nature of the “Unconscious” Leader made a useful distinction between what post-Freudian psychoanalysis terms the “Unrepressed Unconscious” and the “Repressed Unconscious”, the latter being defined as something that you’ve already known (i.e., has already been conscious) but that you then repress “because it’s too difficult to know about”. This is very much Freud’s domain (and perhaps Blake’s). The “Unrepressed Unconscious”, on the other hand, was what particularly interested Jung: this form of the unconscious has never come into consciousness, due to structural reasons, and is similar in some ways to what he famously called the “Collective Unconscious”.

Screenshot 2022-07-19 at 16.34.00

Screenshot 2022-07-19 at 16.31.11

Screenshot 2022-07-19 at 16.32.26

“Leader made a useful distinction between what post-Freudian psychoanalysis terms the ‘Unrepressed Unconscious’ and the ‘Repressed Unconscious’.” There are many ways to visualise and model the mind, but most have a division between the “conscious” and “unconscious” aspects or levels; and then further distinctions within those realms (e.g., between repressed unconscious – things that were once conscious but have been repressed, and the unrepressed unconscious, which perhaps constitutes the greater part of all unconscious activity). The unrepressed unconscious seems to have a holistic or “collective” aspect to it – wave-like or field-like. The “conscious” portion seems like a particle – a separate, individualised, isolated, conscious, rational, “ego”.

According to depth psychology, the Unrepressed Unconscious is characterized by such features as “non-directed thinking” (spontaneous, metaphorical, archaic) and “symmetry”. The question of “symmetry” really lay at the centre of Leader’s talk: she described it as a pattern or form that repeats itself (“this repeating and repeating”), and she sees a reflection of this in the work of Blake, whose poems and paintings, she suggests, often “play out the idea of symmetry”. Blake’s “fearful symmetry”, Leader argues, prefigures the ideas not only of modern depth psychology but also modern chaos theory, both of which are evident in the theories of the psychoanalyst and mathematician Ignacio Matte Blanco, whose ideas formed the main focus of the second half of the talk.

Screen Shot 2021-05-10 at 10.39.26

Blake and Matte Blanco: Symmetry and Asymmetry

Screenshot 2022-07-19 at 17.28.46

Image: Escher’s drawing no. 126 (1967). Many of Escher’s images brilliantly play with themes of symmetry and infinity. Escher carried out mathematical investigations that led to symmetry drawings of three distinct kinds of tilings with two colours, capturing the essence of duality. He used several of these drawings as key elements in his prints that further expressed ideas of duality.

In Matte Blanco’s formulation, contemporary physics and modern psychoanalytic theory are attempts at developing rule-based structures with which to understand, respectively, the apparently chaotic nature of fundamental physical reality and the equally “illogical” nature of unconscious psychical reality.

Though the unconscious, for example, might appear “chaotic” Matte Blanco believed that it operates according to its own implicate “logic”, and can be understood, for example, in terms of the principle of Generalization and the principle of Symmetry (The Unconscious as Infinite Sets, 1975). In the principle of Generalization, logic does not take account of individuals as such, it deals with them only as members of classes, and of classes of classes. In the principle of Symmetry, the logic treats the converse of any relation as identical to it; that is, it deals with relationships as symmetrical.

As Leader defined it this logic, or “bi-logic” as he termed it, is “the ability to look into the chaos and give it a structure” (bi-logic relates to the two modes of being, respectively symmetry and asymmetry in thought and reasoning and brain processes, in unconscious and in conscious modes of being).  This is obviously an intriguing supposition, but it is also here where the theories seem most speculative, and also in some senses most un-Blakean. Both “generalization” and “symmetry” seem to be quite strongly associated in Blake’s work with Urizen – the desperate need of the rational (conscious) mind to seek to find, or impose, “logic” and rules on the universe.

Screenshot 2022-07-19 at 17.48.00

The Urizen Set. The whole Urizen programme is based on notions of logic, symmetry, and repetition (or “ratio”). Its speciality is Generalisation and Universalisation, also the key programmes of the left brain. The imaginative right hemisphere, by contrast, understands that actual reality is embodied, asymmetrical, living, and particular. The right hemisphere is the biological substrate of the (unrepressed) unconscious. However, it’s worth pointing out that the Urizenic “conscious” mind is – as Freud himself intuited in his later work – actually deeply “unconscious” and automatic in many of its functions. Its tragedy is that the conscious mind does not know that it is actually deep unconscious. It was this aspect that Matte Blanco, a heavily “left brain” thinker, picked up in this theories of the symmetrical “unconscious”: it is the unconscious nature of rationality itself that he seems to be eloquently describing.

In The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, for example, Blake provocatively suggests that it is precisely the presence of this rationalising programme or compulsive drive within the mind that actually creates the fiction of an “irrational” or chaotic world in order to justify imposing its own structure and control, and which it orders (or rather “re-orders”) according to its inherent linear-sequencing, abstracting, internally-consistent rules and laws.

Psychic reality can certainly manifest itself in highly disruptive, terrifying ways – as Blake’s Job painfully realizes – but Blake’s genius is surely to suggest that these traumatic experiences stem not from the “unconscious” as such but from the repressive efforts of the rational consciousness in trying to impose logical rather than organic forms of “order” in the first place.

Screenshot 2022-07-19 at 18.31.55

Image: ‘Behemoth and Leviathan’, from Blake’s Illustrations to the Book of Job. This is pretty much how the rational (Urizenic) mind sees the psyche: split in two, and divided between supposedly “higher” and “lower” aspects, with the “lower” or primitive side (the id, the unconscious) presented as threatening, chaotic, dangerous, and dragon-like – an energetic serpent or a hardened psychopathic monster, ready to escape and overwhelm the pure, rational Ego/Logos. In other words, Job’s “God” is showing us how he sees his own subconscious mind. But once we de-throne this rationalising and domineering, puritanical bully, the scene changes somewhat: “I remain’d alone, and then this appearance was no more; but I found myself sitting on a pleasant bank beside a river, by moonlight, hearing a harper, who sung to the harp; and his theme was: ‘The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind'” (The Marriage of Heaven and Hell). Note how “God” appears at the top of the design, reaching down with his left arm, much like the Urizenic figure on the frontispiece to Europe.

It was Job’s original model of “God” – i.e., his belief construct about the nature of reality (based upon an unconscious need to establish what it calls “order”, and his concomitant belief that God would reward him for being “good”, or “righteous”) – that created his nightmare, his suffering. His demonic God is not the result of “paranoia” but rather a deep insight into orthodox theistic belief systems that no longer become tenable.

And Job’s “unconscious” comes back to bite him not because the unconscious is chaotic or intrinsically unruly or threatening, but because vital processes and ways of relating have been blocked and frustrated by the rationalizing, moralizing consciousness that seeks to portray the energies of the unconscious in relentlessly negative terms.

Blake suggests that, to adopt a metaphor used by both Freud and Plato in their metaphors of the self, the egoic “rider” creates the wayward “horse” by calling itself the rider. Take this rider away, and what you are left with is not an engulfing chaos (“the scaly fold of a monstrous serpent”), but rather “a pleasant bank beside a river by moon light hearing a harper” (The Marriage of Heaven and Hell).

It is the rational “Angel’s” “Analytics” that had produced the nightmare, which it then projected onto the unconscious as “Leviathan”, and it is modern-day psycho-“Analytics” who, following Freud, repeat this error. As Marilyn Butler remarks of Blake: “his hell is a productive energizing chaos. In particular he sings the delights of disobedience”. In this the supposedly “Unrepressed Unconscious” works much more like the model of the “Repressed Unconscious” of course, but then it is ambiguous where exactly consciousness and unconsciousness divide, and indeed where the repressed stops and the unrepressed starts. Perhaps the Repressed and Unrepressed cannot be distinguished so easily: the repressed unconscious seems to throw up images and archetypes from the unrepressed. Even Freud recognised that the seemingly rational egoic “consciousness” often displays “unconsciousness” and acts as a repressor at times, blurring any neat, Urizenic difference.

Screenshot 2022-07-19 at 18.45.22

Making monsters, in order to present yourself as the saviour of them: “It is the rational ‘Angel’s’ ‘Analytics’ that had produced the nightmare, which it then projected onto the unconscious as ‘Leviathan’, and it is modern-day psycho-‘Analytics’ who, following Freud, repeat this error.” Image: Plate 20 from The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. In the waves of a dark and tumultuous sea, Leviathan appears as a coiled, scaly serpent with its head raised vertically, mouth open, teeth visible, tongue extended. This is the unconscious form of Reason itself, and its dark, mill-like revolutions – which is of course exactly how it sees the world: how it sees the revolving stars (the “starry wheels”, the “Starry Mills of Satan”, the “dark Satanic Mills”), how it sees the double-helix of life itself. This was the serpent model that Druidic consciousness introduced, and which rose to ascendancy through the cultures of neolithic Stonehenge to ancient Sumer and Mesopotamia: the dominion of the Emissary, now in ascendance in the human brain. Blake inscribed one version of this design: “O revolving serpent / O the Ocean of Time & Space”.

If the Blakean “Unconscious” is perhaps a more dynamic and positive entity than that suggested by post-Freudian psychoanalysis, the fundamental importance of mathematics and geometry in the work of Matte Blanco also seems rather at odds with Blake’s view of these. Blake famously remarked that “God is not a Mathematical Diagram” and spent much of his life railing against the geometrical ideology of everyone from Plato to Newton.

Screenshot 2022-07-19 at 18.51.42 2

“The Gods of Greece & Egypt were MathematicalDiagrams. See Plato’s Works”, from Blake’s Laocoon (top right hand corner)

For Blake, the language of mathematics is one that is always only retrospectively read back into nature. This is why Blake constantly emphasizes how much this science is based not on immediate knowledge of the world but rather on “memory”: mathematics for him is a retrospective language, laboriously worked out behind closed doors, always looking back and over its shoulder at the world. He explicitly contrasted “mathematic form” with “living form”: “Mathematic Form is Eternal in the Reasoning Memory”, he noted, “Living Form is Eternal Existence”. And to underline the vital difference between the rational or Platonic and the spiritual or imaginative he added, “Grecian is Mathematic Form. Gothic is Living Form”.

Leader’s presentation was fascinating in its attempts to align the symmetrical, numerical “infinite sets” of Mandelbrot and Matte Blanco with the role of repeated or multiplied images in Blake’s work (the multitudinous “eyes” in his painting of The Four and Twenty Elders Casting their Crowns, for example, or the many hands of Jung’s own painting of the little dreamer, up against a huge dragon with the repetitive pattern of “loads of hands”, “loads of spots”).

The Four and Twenty Elders Casting their Crowns before the Divine Throne circa 1803-5 by William Blake 1757-1827

Screenshot 2022-07-19 at 19.06.03 3

Above: “the multitudinous ‘eyes’ in Blake’s painting of The Four and Twenty Elders Casting their Crowns“. Below: Jung’s extraordinary, and extraordinarily beautiful, image of the dreamer (Atmavictu, Jung himself) killing the green dragon (who had just swallowed the sun – ie the solar consciousness of the rational ego). Now Atmavictu sets out to retrieve it from the dragon’s belly, but as Jung’s inscription says, the dragon “must not hand over the gold of the sun.” At the same time there are other suns falling from the dragon’s dismembered body. It’s a typically complex and fascinating image both of the psyche and of Jung’s own complex psyche in particular (he made this image during his psychotic period, during which his own rational conscious ego seems to have been momentarily “devoured”). Jung certainly emerged from the experience with a more developed and deepened understanding of the healing nature of the “unconscious” than Freud, and had by then even recognised that the supposed “hero” Siegfried (whom he had earlier identified with) was actually the symbol of the overblown ego. But it’s depressing that Jung emerges still slaying dragons – the archetype of St George murdering the dragon with his rational sword, which became the basic model of the Logos-centric psyche from the Sumerian and Babylonian stage (6,000 years ago) onwards, denoting the supremacy of the rationalising Ego/Hero (individualistic) Emissary over an Other now presented as animalistic, uncultured, primitive, brutal, chaotic and needing to be murdered. This is essentially Plato’s, and Freud’s, view of their own heads.

She might be right – I am not a mathematician, and certainly these comparisons are suggestive – and one of the great virtues of Blake’s work is that it is so open to different ways of seeing, so multi-interpretational. But my sense of Blake is almost asymmetrically opposite: what is striking about the universe is surely its deep asymmetry (from brain hemispheres to universes), and that the “symmetries” are, pace Matte Blanco, a feature of the rationalizing Urizenic mind, not of deep imaginative reality.

The Tyger’s “fearful symmetry” (as Leader notes, the only time Blake uses this word) belongs to Urizen, as does the symbol of the stars of course, such as those which preside over Job’s rational suffering and unconsciousness. Surely the suggestion in Blake’s work is that reality, the deep truth, is asymmetrical, spontaneously self-organizing, vital, fluid, diverse, contrary – and that it is actually rational consciousness that is currently problematic and pathological.

Screenshot 2022-07-28 at 09.59.18

Fearful Symmetry

In this sense Freud’s iceberg model of the mind is upside down: what we need to do, as psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Charles Rycroft astutely argued, is not go beyond the pleasure principle but go beyond the reality principle (‘Beyond the Reality Principle’, in Imagination and Reality: Psychoanalytical Essays). This is because Freud’s “reality’ is based on profound repression and the normalization of what Rycroft calls a “psychoneurotic” dissociation between the rational and intuitive, one which Freud presupposed was normal but which is actually (as Blake correctly intuited) pathological.

DSC07302 3

In his brilliant essay ‘Beyond the Reality Principle’, Charles Rycroft challenged both the dissociative basis upon which Freudian psychoanalytics is grounded, and the classical concept of the ego. Freud’s metaphor might, he notes, perhaps describe “the state of affairs existing in psychoneurotics” but in proclaiming it as a general principle or model of “normal” dynamics it is both inaccurate and damaging. For it “presupposes as normal a split between mind and body, between will and desire, which can itself be regarded as pathological”. Current rationality, and therefore current common sense, maintains Freud’s psychoneurotic model of the human mind: split between rider and horse, and forever torn between reality and pleasure. This is why Rycroft postulates that an “integrated” person might be extremely rare in today’s society.

In describing the potentially enormously beneficial work of therapy, Carol Leader was eloquent on how our minds so often tend to get “stuck” – trapped in compulsive, repeating cycles of thought, and unable to let go of or work through an experience. These are profound, and profoundly disturbing states, and Leader was both acute and moving in her descriptions of patients who get caught in these states, repeating litanies of self-lacerating mantras: ‘Why does this always happen to me?’, ‘I’m never going to talk to her again!’ and so on – the ‘always’ and ‘never’ clauses indicative, as Leader brilliantly noted, of this ‘stickiness’ of the mind.

But this ‘stickiness’ is also surely a feature of the ‘left hemisphere’, as Iain McGilchrist’s recent work in this area suggests: it is precisely the rationalizing, Urizenic, ‘conscious’ mind (the mind skilled in “analytics” as Blake would say) that the ego unfortunately identifies with, and its incessant loops of judgmental, moralizing, self-isolating systems of thought.

As McGilchrist explains, “there is a curious phenomenon of ‘stickiness’ about the attention exhibited by the left hemisphere, which is related to its relative inflexibility … The left hemisphere’s ‘stickiness’, its tendency to recur to what it is familiar with, tends to reinforce whatever it is already doing. There is a reflexivity to the process, as if trapped in a hall of mirrors: it only discovers more of what it already knows, and it only does more of what it already is doing” (The Master and his Emissary).

This sense of the “stuck” mind doing “more of what it already is doing” and knowing “what it already knows” is immediately suggestive of Blake’s Urizenic “mills” and indeed of his definition of what ‘ratio-nalising’ actually consists in: “Reason, or the ratio of all we have already known, is not the same that it shall be when we know more”. Once again, the symmetries seem to belong to Urizenic consciousness, the rational ego, and it is this that causes so much damage to the human mind in Blake’s psychomachias.

Screen Shot 2021-04-08 at 16.31.42

“There is a reflexivity to the process, as if trapped in a hall of mirrors: it only discovers more of what it already knows, and it only does more of what it already is doing” (The Master and his Emissary). The symmetries of Urizen.

Conversely, the world beyond the conscious – Blake’s “World of Imagination” – seems to be not symmetrical but asymmetrical: it is not homogenous and “all the same”, but rather multitudinous. Indeed, it is “Urizen” who wants everything to be the same, to be unified – “One command, one joy, one desire,/One curse, one weight, one measure/One King, one God, one Law”. The Blakean “Unconscious” rejects this form of order or structure because “One Law for the Lion & Ox” is not peace and unity, as rational “logic” supposes, but “Oppression”.

Instead, Leader interprets Blake’s world in which contraries are both necessary and equal as somehow similar to Matte Blanco’s representation of the symmetrical unconscious, a world of dull dense symmetries (“this symmetrical thickness”) in which “everything’s become the same” and where all opposites disappear: “it’s a world of total peace, and it’s also a place of catatonia”, where the Lion and the Lamb are one.

Again, this interpretation of the unbearable deadness of infinity may be a projection of the rationalizing mind. Interestingly, Leader herself remarks that as the “symmetrical thickness” of the unconscious unfolds through the action of therapy – and at this point we were invited to unfold our pieces of paper, to illustrate how this unravels and opens up itself, through the saviour of “logic” (or “bi-logic”, as Matte Blanco puts it) – the form of apparently “asymmetrical” consciousness increasingly becomes like “a sort of computer mind”, characterized by linear processing, and ultimately “without any feeling at all”.

Screenshot 2022-07-28 at 10.30.25

“This Angel, who is now become a Devil”: Blake’s psychotherapy works in the reverse or contrary way to orthodox (Urizenic) Freudian psychoanalysis: the task is not “to make the unconscious conscious”, but to widen and strengthen the unconscious itself and return the “conscious” portion to the greater whole, as an integrated total psyche, in whom we move and live and have our being. As Rycroft suggests, also reversing Freud’s polarity, “If the hypothesis presented here is correct, the aim of psycho-analytical treatment is not primarily to make the unconscious conscious, nor to widen or strengthen the ego, but to re-establish the connexion between dissociated psychic functions, so that the patient ceases to feel that there is an inherent antagonism between his imaginative and adaptive capacities” (‘Beyond the Reality Principle’).

So I think there is a tension here: post-Freudian psychoanalysis would like to see this unfolding, this therapy, as a positive attempt at imposing “order” on to the apparently chaotic and threatening “unconscious”, by bringing it into consciousness, into light, into order, (“where id was, there ego shall be”, as Freud famously summarised the goal of his form of rationalised psychoanalysis), whereas Blake might challenge some of these assumptions about adaption to the “reality principle”, and point out the analytic mind’s own role or complicity in creating mental illness by calling these potentially liberating disturbances “disorders” in the first place. As R.D. Laing once remarked, it is in some ways the doctor who creates the patient by calling himself the doctor (The Divided Self).

Similarly, Rycroft suggests that therapy works, but not by imposing consciousness and order: “the aim of psycho-analytical treatment”, he noted, “is not primarily to make the unconscious conscious, nor to widen or strengthen the ego, but to re-establish the connexion between dissociated psychic functions, so that the patient ceases to feel that there is an inherent antagonism between his imaginative and adaptive capacities”. Groddeck made a similar point, that what heals the patient is not the doctor or the analyst but the “id” of the patient – which is a disarming honesty given the fees the former often charge (The Book of the It).

Screen Shot 2021-05-10 at 10.39.26

The Four Fold Psyche

Screen Shot 2019-03-18 at 15.49.44

Blake’s “fourfold vision” which combined reason, imagination, sense, and emotion, strikingly prefigures Jung’s later development of a similar “fourfold” psychological typology that consists of four functions of consciousness (thinking, feeling, intuition and sensation), which can be directed inwardly (i.e., “introverted”) or outwardly (i.e., “extraverted”), as in the famous Myers-Briggs personality types – Introverted (Si, Ni, Ti, Fi) or Extraverted Functions (Se, Ne, Te, Fe).

Carol Leader’s talk also unfolded many extraordinary and thought-provoking similitudes and correspondences between Blake’s work and that of Jungian psychoanalysts and depth psychologists. She drew intriguing parallels between the need to recognize and face one’s “Spectre” (in Blake’s works) and confront one’s “Shadow” (in Jung terms); she explored the often striking and pregnant correlations between Blake’s “Emanations” and Jung’s “animas”; and made suggestive connections between the fourfold psychologies of both writers. In this, Leader has provided an immensely valuable perspective to explore these correspondences, and to trace these threads.

But the differences are also notable, and perhaps equally valuable, and one area where Jung and Blake seem to diverge quite profoundly is that concerning the “Selfhood”. As Tim Heath acutely pointed out in his introduction, one of Blake’s key themes is the “annihilation of the Selfhood”: this is neither an easy concept to discuss nor an easy process to undergo, but it is central to his work and remains one of his most provocative and challenging aspects. There were questions at the end of the talk which pointed to the possible tension here between Blake and the work of post-Freudian psychoanalysts. Responding to the query that both Freud and Jung seem to want to actually strengthen the ego, Leader made an interesting distinction between a “good” or healthy ego, and what Winnicott termed a “false self”. This distinction may be valid but it is also complex and ambiguous: what Winnicott terms the “False Self” is in some ways very similar to what Freud termed the “normal” ego (a protective, socialized mechanism or mask – “the mask, which conceals this subtle reservation of all control under intellectual rationalizations”, as Freudian psychoanalyst Joan Riviere put it).


“What Winnicott terms the ‘False Self’ is in some ways very similar to what Freud termed the ‘normal’ ego (a protective, socialized mechanism or mask – ‘the mask, which conceals this subtle reservation of all control under intellectual rationalizations’, as Freudian psychoanalyst Joan Riviere put it.” Image: the rationalising egoic Spectre, hovering over the sleeping form of Jerusalem (Plate 37, Jerusalem The Emanation of The Giant Albion). The Spectre is in many ways the agency responsible for the sleeping – the unconsciousness – of Jerusalem. We call this state of persistent narcolepsy “the conscious rational egoic mind”. The Spectre is not the Shadow of Jung’s psychology – that part of ourselves that the civilised, rational mind doesn’t want to admit. The Shadow is the civilised rational mind in its true form (rather as Job’s “God’ – his dominant psychological function – is finally revealed to be a cloven-hoofed tyrant, in its true form). Our problem is not the projected Shadow (as the rational ego calls it), but the Halo – the byproduct or manifestation of Rational Enlightened Solar Consciousness and its self-righteous sense of immense superiority and dominion.

This “protective” sense of self is in fact strikingly evocative of what Blake terms the “Covering Cherub” – the egoic “Self” that acts both to guard “eternity” and to stop us from entering it. Blake elsewhere calls this false self an “incrustation”: “This is a false Body: an Incrustation over my Immortal/Spirit; a Selfhood, which must be put off & annihilated alway”, and which he associates with “the Spectre; the Reasoning Power in Man”. Indeed, Freud himself suggests such an identification of the orthodox ego and the “false self” in his late theory of “the ego as constituted in its nucleus by a series of alienating identifications”. As Adam Phillips has noted, in this he produced a theory of “the Ego, which does bear some comparison with the False Self”.

Screenshot 2022-07-28 at 11.05.20

Jungian psychology: “the purpose of Jungian analytical psychology is for patients ‘to learn how to be more effectively selfish and more effective in the use of their personal power’ (Edinger)”. Image: Los, the imaginative “blacksmith” of the psyche, looks up toward his spectre, a dark, bat-winged figure who hovers in the flames above. The links of a massive chain extend from the floor to the bottom of the bellows and from the top of the bellows under the wing of the spectre. Note the closeness of their heads (Plate 6, Jerusalem The Emanation of The Giant Albion )

Jung’s own adherence to the principle of self was even more problematic and evident, both in his own life and in his analytical thought. As Edinger (one of his most able and influential proponents) explains, the purpose of Jungian analytical psychology is for patients “to learn how to be more effectively selfish and more effective in the use of their personal power”: “What is required is not the extirpation of selfishness … but rather that it be wedded to consciousness and thus becomes effective”. Jung believed in modifying one’s own personal self in order to bring it in alignment with the greater “Self”, with a capital “S”.

But this greater Self in Jung’s work correlates strongly with what Blake also termed “the Great Selfhood”, also known, he notes, as “Satan” (‘Satan’ being Blake’s term for the rationalizing Ego, considered as a State rather than as an individual). This identification is only intensified further by Blake’s equation of this “Great Selfhood Satan” with mandala-like geometric symbols, such as those used in the alchemical imagery so beloved of Jung:

I am your Rational Power O Albion & that Human Form

You call Divine, is but a Worm seventy inches long …

So spoke the Spectre to Albion. he is the Great Selfhood

Satan: Worshipd as God by the Mighty Ones of the Earth

Having a white Dot calld a Center from which branches out

A Circle in continual gyrations

According to Blake, all belief systems which worship a “God” in the form of a mathematical or geometrical pattern or symmetrical mandala, therefore, are worshipping not the true divinity, but the other “God”, the “Angel of the Divine Presence” as Blake refers to him, and who, as he says, is often mistaken for the real “God”. This mandala-like attribution to the “Great Selfhood” was noticed by Jung, who acutely commented that “one might perhaps regard the mandala as a reflection of the egocentric nature of consciousness”, and its God is a white Dot in a geometrical, perfect Circle. I raise these points here simply because I feel more needs to be said about this subject, given the pathological nature of the contemporary ego (as Eckhart Tolle has eloquently suggested), and the lack of serious criticism or debate about this within the psychoanalytic community.

Screenshot 2022-07-07 at 20.05.44

Screenshot 2022-07-07 at 20.06.39

william_blake_sconfitta_1795 (2)

Urizen worshipping his God, the mandala-like perfect geometrical Circle of Solar Consciousness, in whose image he has made the entire Cosmos. With a Dot at its centre. Thus aligning himself with it.

In exploring these correlations and drawing these connections between Blake’s approach and that of modern psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, Carol Leader has instigated a thought-provoking, wide-ranging, and immensely valuable discussion that will I think have implications for both Blakean research and psychoanalytic practice. There will inevitably be disagreements – “without contraries is no progression”, and opposition genuinely is true friendship – but out of the discussion that she has initiated, both therapeutic practice and our understanding of Blake’s pioneering approach can be significantly enriched and developed.

The asymmetries between the two approaches may also turn out to be as interesting and telling as the symmetries. Leader is an actor and presenter as well as a psychoanalytic psychotherapist, and looking at her images of Blakean visions and Jungian mandalas during her Blake talk I was reminded of one of the much-loved programmes that she presented in the 1970s, in which there were also mandala-like ‘windows’ (famously, there was an arched, a square, and a round window) which the camera would slowly zoom through into a short outside film. (She discusses these windows, and the programme, in her fascinating chapter on Play School in the recent book Television and Psychoanalysis, in the context of Winnicott’s theory of “transitional objects” and how children’s television programmes form part of our personal “genera”). These were always rather magical moments in the programme, mysteriously suggesting that television screens were not simply something that you looked at, but which you could go through. In this, perhaps they resemble the Blakean images that she threw on the walls of the room in the Freud Museum, where apparently Freud once slept.

Screenshot 2022-07-07 at 20.01.35

Though the mandala-like Round Window. (Image: from Play School).

Screen Shot 2021-05-10 at 10.39.26

Roderick Tweedy is author of The God of the Left Hemisphere: Blake, Bolte Taylor and the Myth of Creation (Routledge, 2013), a study of Blake’s work in the light of modern neuroscience; the editor of The Political Self: Understanding the Social Context for Mental Illness (Routledge, 2017), and the editor of The Divided Therapist: Hemispheric Difference and Contemporary Psychotherapy (Routledge, 2021). For the video recording of Carol Leader’s talk, please click here


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s