On the Nature of Change in the Four Elements

59 Pages·2015·1.07 MB·English

by  Ben Rovers

On the Nature of Change in the Four Elements
A Comparison of Classical and Jungian Thought

The alchemical Squaring of the Circle. Source: D. Stolcius von Stolcenberg. 1624. Viridarium chymicum.
Frankfurt.

Ben Rovers
CANTERBURY CHRIST CHURCH UNIVERSITY
MA in Myth, Cosmology and the Sacred
MA-thesis
11th December 2015
2
ON ELEMENTS
The four elements are not a conception of much use to modern chemistry – that is, they are
not the elements of nature. But (…) earth, air, water and fire are still the four elements of
imaginative experience, and always will be.
(Canadian literary critic Northrop Frye, in: Ball 2002:11).

ON CHANGE
…all is in motion and mixture and transition and flux and generation, not "being," as we
ignorantly affirm, but "becoming." This has been the doctrine, not of Protagoras only, but of
all philosophers, with the single exception of Parmenides
(Plato, Theaetetus, 152e)

ON KNOWING ABOUT IT
There are some things which are as yet shut up in the treasure house of nature, namely those
things which still have not attained to anyone's notice, regarding which there are certain
things the capacity of human cognition does not suffice to comprehend; there are certain
things which are able to be known, to the knowing of which, however, the soul of no man has
yet attained.

(Alkindi, De Radiis Stellicis [On The Stellar Rays], 40).

3
4
Table of Contens

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 9
2. PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS AND RUDIMENTARY ANSWERS ................................................................... 13
2.1 THE NATURE OF REALITY AND HOW WE CAN KNOW IT .......................................................................................... 13
2.2 ELEMENTS: THE BASIC ‘STUFF’ OF WHICH REALITY IS MADE ................................................................................... 14
2.3 WHAT THE FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS ARE AND HOW MANY THERE ARE .................................................................. 16
2.4 PRIMARY QUALITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ELEMENTS ........................................................................................ 17
3. CLASSICAL PERSPECTIVES ON CHANGE IN ELEMENTS ............................................................................ 19
3.1 PRE-EMPEDOCLEAN NOTIONS ON ELEMENTS AND CHANGE ................................................................................... 19
3.2 EMPEDOCLES: LOVE AND STRIFE BETWEEN FOUR ELEMENTS .................................................................................. 23
3.3 HIPPOCRATES: MODERATE BLENDING AND BALANCE OF HUMOURS ........................................................................ 25
3.4 PLATO: SOUL AND GEOMETRY OF CHANGE ........................................................................................................ 27
3.5 ARISTOTLE: MATTER, FORM AND PRIVATION ...................................................................................................... 31
3.6 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 35
4. JUNG ON PSYCHIC FUNCTIONS AND CHANGE ....................................................................................... 37
4.1 PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPES AND ENANTIODROMIA ................................................................................................... 38
4.2 QUATERNITY AND THE CONIUNCTIO OPPOSITORUM ............................................................................................ 40
4.3 COMPARING PERSPECTIVES ............................................................................................................................ 43
4.4 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 47
5. CONCLUSION: CLASSICAL ELEMENTS AS THE GATES TO CONSCIOUSNESS ............................................. 49
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 53

5
6
Abstract

For many centuries astrologers worked with the classical elements of fire, air, water and
earth in delineating horoscopes. Influenced by the depth psychology of Carl Gustav Jung,
astrologers in the second half of the twentieth century starting replacing these elements
with Jung’s psychic functions (intuition, thinking, feeling and sensation). According to these
astrologers, intuition can be equated with fire, thinking with air, feeling with water and
sensation with earth (e.g. Greene 1977, Hamaker-Zondag 1978). Other astrologers criticized
this way of working, arguing that Jung’s functions cannot be equated to the classical
elements (Hand 1981, Banzhaf 1994). This thesis investigates the relation between Jung’s
four psychological types and the four classical elements. Can they be equated to each other?
More specifically, how does Jung describe change from the dynamic between psychic
functions, and does this theory converge with classical theories on elements? To answer
these questions, classical Greek theories of elements are discussed, starting with the
Milesian thinkers in the sixth century BCE and ending with Aristotle’s systematized and
refined model. These theories are then compared to Jung’s ideas on psychological types and
on the quaternity. The analysis shows that to fully understand Jung’s ideas on elements, we
have to look beyond his work on psychological types. His later work on alchemy and on the
quaternity shows very close links to classical theories on elements. He translates the classical
ideas into a theory of consciousness, replaces the classical elements with the four functions
of psyche, and shows how these are all needed in a process to get from unconscious oneness
to conscious oneness. In doing so, he closely follows classical insights, coming from authors
such as Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Empedocles and Plato. His approach is definitely more
platonic than aristotelian, which may explain why the basic opposites at work in his model
deviate from the classical scheme as we know it from Aristotle.
7
8
1. Introduction

According to British academic Paul Strathern (200:255), the Aristotelian theory of the four
elements which had survived for two thousand years, definitely succumbed after the French
chemist Antoine de Lavoisier discovered that pure water, when boiled, does not turn into
earth. The observation is only partly true; unquestionably the four elements are no longer
the building blocks of modern physics and chemistry, but on a symbolic and imaginative level
they seem more alive than ever.1 The concept of (four) elements is omnipresent in ancient
myth, cosmogonies and cosmological theories (Von Franz 1995:233-261).2 Throughout
history they have been applied to disciplines such as alchemy, astrology, medicine and
psychology (Banzhaf 1994, Greenbaum 2005, Tobyn 2013).
In Astrology the concept is still widely used. It is not clear when astrologers started
incorporating elements in their craft, but we may assume this already happened quite early
on, since astrology has always been closely linked to disciplines such as natural philosophy,
cosmology and medicine, in which elements are a crucial component of one sort or another
(Greenbaum 2005:5-18, Tobyn 2013:161-201).
In the second half of the twentieth century astrologers started incorporating psychological
concepts. Heavily influenced by the depth psychology of Carl Gustav Jung, a new branch of
astrology developed in which psychological analysis of a person was combined with classical
astrological delineation. In this branch of astrology a seemingly new idea on elements was
introduced, inspired by Jung’s psychic functions (intuition, thinking, feeling and sensing).
These were linked to the four classical elements of fire, air, water and earth. Psychological

1 The Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_elements_in_popular_culture shows a whole
range of applications of the four elements in modern popular culture.
2 The four ‘classical’ elements, fire, air, water and earth, are not the only elements in these early visions, but
the four play a crucial role.
9
astrologers such as Liz Greene (1977:52-90 and Karen Hamer-Zondag (1978, 1979), started
working with this new scheme which rapidly became popular in the astrological community.
Other astrologers, such as Robert Hand (1981) and Hajo Banzhaf (1994), were critical of the
way Jungian concepts entered astrology. Hand (1981: 241-246) sums up the problems; Jung
wrote that his psychic functions are connected to the elements, but he never explained how
the connection should be made. According to Hand (and others), the particular attribution
of feeling to water and intuition to fire is - at the very least - confusing, as is Jung’s idea that
feeling is a ‘rational’ function.3 Another problem is that Jung seems to create new opposites:
intuition versus sense (fire vs. earth) and thinking versus feeling (air vs. water). In early
Greek theories of elements, certainly in Aristotle’s model, these elements share qualities,
respectively dryness and moistness. In this model fire and water, air and earth are the ‘real’
oppositions, because these elements do not share qualities. For example, fire is hot and dry,
while water is cold and wet. Hand also argues that Jung’s model can never fit into astrology,
because he treats two opposing functions not only as opposites but as excluding
characteristics as well. This contradicts the idea of elements in astrology: they can all exist
next to each other.
When we take a step back from the astrological discourse, we can see that there are
different ways of approaching Jung’s psychic functions in relation to the classical Greek
system of elements. So a basic question would be: are Jung’s psychic functions congruent
with the classical elements? And if so, why do some, like Hand, Banzhaf and others, fail to
see the link? What are they missing? Are they right, and does Jung’s theory deviate from the
classical scheme of elements? If so, in what way? More specifically, what does this mean for
the way elements create dynamic and change? This last question will be the focal point of
this dissertation: how does the Jungian model of psychic functions describe change and
dynamic in reality and can this model be seen as congruent with or deviating from the
classical theories on elements?

3 Banzhaf (1994:199) argues that what Jung calls intuition is really feeling.
10