I came across this at Eric Bryant’s I Ching blog: Atomic I Ching hexagrams and atomic Jungian archetypes. By ‘atomic’ hexagrams he means the four ‘seed within the seed’ nuclear hexagrams that all the hexagrams ultimately ‘resolve to’: 1, 2, 63 and 64. These he attempts to map onto archetypal psychological structures: animus, anima, shadow and self.
What I know of Jungian archetypes is pretty much limited to what I’ve just been reading on the subject at Wikipedia, but the idea of finding a correlation here is intriguing.
“Being unconscious, the existence of archetypes can only be deduced indirectly by examining behaviour, images, art, myths, etc. They are inherited potentials which are actualized when they enter consciousness as images or manifest in behaviour on contact with the outside world.”
Nuclear hexagrams seem to me to work in a similar way: hidden potentials, expressed in different ways as the outer lines bring them into ‘contact with the outside world’. Still, the mapping of ‘self’ and ‘shadow’ to 64 and 63 respectively feels awkward to me. Looking for a picture of a realised, coherent self – something that could be drawn as a circle or a mandala – it would be natural to arrive at the hexagram where all the lines are in the ‘right places’ and fire and water, like conscious and unconscious, are working together.
Interesting realm of correspondences to play in, anyway…
thanks for the commentary, hilary. it is very sharp. Succint and thoughtful.
actually, i agree with you: mapping ‘self’ and ‘shadow’ to 64 and 63 feels a bit awkward to me as well. in fact, i’ve pondered this ‘mapping’ for many long days, and can go in either direction, given the mood im in that day! 🙂 it is quite as conceivable to map self and shadow the other way round. 64, in static form, can involve elements of a primal, unconscious, almost nameless dread, an emptiness; an ennui that is stirring and rumbling just below the surface of the water, so to speak. this would appear to correspond more the common notion of ‘shadow’ and not ‘self’….hmmm.
i think the reason i correlate 63 to ‘shadow’ is because of its yin-ness: i.e., its dark, brooding, haunting, clever, tricksy way of moving equilibrium-state into dis-equilibrium-state, to replace order with chaos, to follow achievement with failure, repair with decay, etc….
also, while i understand your “fire and water” point, keep in mind that fire and water are working together in 64, too. In 63, fire is entering water. But what happens to fire when it enters water? Fire is extinguished. So how much are they really working together?? In 64, fire is moving away from water; neither is quenching the other; both are active in their respective spheres…