Journal of Analytical Psychology, 2018, 63, 4, 510–528

Complex in memory, mind in matter: walking

hand in hand†

Aurea Afonso Caetano and Teresa Cristina Machado, São Paulo

Abstract: This paper aims to highlight four major points: first: a ‘Jungian attitude’
understood as a viewpoint which enables work with interconnectedness through
various fields of knowledge. Second, that complexes are dynamic, as is memory, and
that both are transformed by experience and develop hand in hand with each other
i.e., the transformation of the complex occurs through the transformation of memory
as embodied in internal working models, and vice versa. Third, complexes and
archetypes are linked to each other in matrices of one form or another and lead to the
complexity of the psyche, which is a developing system. Fourth, the analytical process
provides an arena that enables and consolidates interconnections that foster a better
intrapsychic transition. The analytic meeting promotes profound changes, redesigning
our neural architecture as well as our psychic landscape.

Keywords: analytic relationship, analytical psychology, complex, complex psychology,

interconnectedness, Jungian attitude, memory, neuroscience

Proposal
This article explores the further possible integration between the neurosciences
and analytical psychology. This inquiry has been conducted throughout the last
ten years in a joint effort by a study group called ‘Psychiatry, Analytical
Psychology and Neuroscience Integration Center’ (Núcleo de Integração de
Psiquiatria, Psicologia Analítica e Neurociências) from the Brazilian Society of
Analytical Psychology (SBrPA) in São Paulo.
Among the various topics studied during this period, we chose to focus on the
concepts of complex and memory in this article. These two concepts bring
together analytical psychology and the neurosciences in a clear and
unequivocal manner that broadens and enriches the understanding of
phenomena occurring in clinical practice. As Jung proposes, when we move

† An earlier version of this article was presented at the XXth IAAP Congress in Kyoto, 2016, and
published in the Studi Junghiani- Revista Semestrale dell’ Associazione Italiana di Psicologia
Analítica 44, luglio-diciembre 2016.

0021-8774/2018/6304/510 © 2018, The Society of Analytical Psychology

Published by Wiley Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
DOI: 10.1111/1468-5922.12431
Complex in memory 511

between two poles, we have the possibility of transcending them and finding a
new, third unit, and to think not only about bridges but also about a
transcendence or complexity. As we illuminate the psyche with the light of
neurosciences, it is possible to trace and enhance new outlines within our
analytical concepts.
The article is divided into four sections: section 1 explores how we move
between various fields of knowledge; sections 2 and 3 outline our field of
exploration; and section 4 ends with our clinical practice. They are:

1. Jungian Attitude and Complex Psychology: the authors refer to the

principles which underlie the interdisciplinary dialectics of the Jungian
attitude; they seek to explore the foundation for this attitude within the
concept of transdisciplinarity in relation to the concept of complex
psychology posited by Jung.
2. Complex: in this section the concept of complex as ‘building blocks’
according to Jung and other authors of Analytical Psychology is revisited.
3. Memory: in this section the authors examine the main paradigm shifts and
discuss the mechanisms of memory formation based on developments in
the neurosciences in the last decades.
4. Clinical practice: the authors explore the implications of these developments
for clinical practice. By analyzing errors in memory, intersubjectivity is
understood to be a constituting element of the redefined concept of the
complex, revisioning the complex as a living and dynamic entity seen in
the lights of our new understanding of the operation of memory. This
section describes the possibility of interconnectedness between complexes,
as well as between archetypes.

1 Jungian attitude and Complex Psychology

Following Jung’s thinking, we may say that moving between different areas
of knowledge is invaluable. According to him, ‘movement is only another
name for mastery’ (Jung, CW 13, par. 38).
As we know, Jung was an avid researcher who revisited and developed
concepts through his multifaceted interest in other fields of knowledge. His
attempt to understand the spiritual aspects of the psyche, his keen interest in
religions, physics and history, and his disposition to explore and improve his
knowledge about the enigmatic and the unknown have given him a
reputation for being less scientific while greatly increasing the reach of his ideas.
In examining information from different areas of expertise, we have found a
similar understanding in groups who work with transdisciplinarity and
complexity. The term ‘transdisciplinarity’ was coined by Jean Piaget in 1970
during a meeting with educators who were searching for solutions that
would allow them to extend knowledge beyond interdisciplinarity and
multidisciplinarity and consequently break the chains of mechanistic
512 Caetano & Machado

reasoning. ‘Transdisciplinarity is the acknowledgement of the interdependence

between all aspects of reality’ (Jantsch 1993, p. 31). Developing this idea even
further, the French sociologist and philosopher Edgar Morin, defined what
would become a new concept, that of complexity. He states:

[...] at first glance, complexity is a fabric (complexus: that which is woven together) of
heterogeneous constituents that are inseparably associated: complexity poses a
paradox of the one and the many. Next, complexity is in fact the fabric of events,
actions, interactions, retroactions, determinations, and chance that constitute our
phenomenological world. (Morin, 2005)

Complexity, as presented by Edgar Morin, posits a logic that opposes the

polarized and exclusive view between various organizational principles. It
considers reality to be multifaceted, constituted by a multitude of nuanced
perspectives which must not be reduced or destroyed, but rather must be
regarded as inherent to the social reality in which we live. The paradigm of
complexity presents a different way of conceiving of the world and society,
one where there is no space for determinism, hierarchism and reductionism.
By proposing an unequivocal link between the various aspects of human
existence, without a hierarchy or value determined a priori, Jung anticipates
Morin’s proposal of complexity. Transformation in any part of the whole
alters and modifies every part of the whole. ‘For Jung, the idea of the whole is
intrinsically associated with a dynamic and systemic perception of the being
and the world, in which the parts are related in a compensatory and
complementary way into one whole’ (Penna 2013, p. 138).
Jung’s great openness and curiosity for everything related to nature and
human nature is clearly reflected in his own words: ‘I am human and,
therefore, I consider nothing human to be alien to me’ (Jung 1935, par. 91, n
10). This understanding of human nature pervades Jung’s life and work. We
call this the ‘Jungian Attitude’ and it is the attitude that reflects our
experience in our work as analysts. This attitude postulates totality and
diversity, the existence of a relationship between the psyche and a world that
is alive and indissoluble. In the words of Brazilian analyst Roberto Gambini,
‘Jung is attitude’ (Casement 2007, p. 363).
The Jungian attitude also connects us to the world of complexities and of
interrelationships. Shamdasani quotes Jung: ‘Complex Psychology means
psychology of ‘complexities’, which means pertaining to complex psychic
systems as opposed to relatively elementary factors’ (Shamdasani, 2005,
p. 28). Let us remember here the controversy regarding the terminology
proposed by Jung: Depth Psychology, Complex Psychology and Analytical
Psychology. Shamdasani reminds us that, ‘while Jung had initially used the
term analytical psychology to define his psychology, during the 1930s, he
renamed it ‘complex psychology’. He also points out that ‘Toni Wolff noted
that … Jung had come to refer to his psychology as complex psychology,
especially when dealing with it from a theoretical viewpoint’ (ibid. p. 28).
Complex in memory 513

Here, Jung clearly shows a reasoning that was ahead of his time. The
psychology of complexities does not allow unequivocal separations. On the
contrary, it encourages us to view our work from a wider, more inclusive
perspective that may be referred to as the unus mundus, a perspective of
reality similar to that proposed by the alchemists. ‘That which is above is like
what is below, and that which is below is like what is above, in order to
make the miracle of the one thing’ (Trismegistus 2011, p. 9). Modern physics
addresses the same issue: the American physicist Henry Stapp states, ‘Bohm’s
approach to consciousness gives rise to an infinite tower of explicate and
implicate orders, each one of them ‘informing’ that which is below and being
‘informed’ by that which is above ...’ (Stapp 2011, p. 106).
American Jungian analyst Joseph Cambray says that the model of psyche
proposed by Jung works as an ‘order organizing principle’ and, in this sense,
is close to David Bohm’s work about implicit order (Cambray 2009, p. 40).
Therefore, we assert that the concept of complexity encompasses the idea of
the interconnectedness of intrapsychic experiences and, consequently, carries
the same attitude as that of complex psychology. In other words, this means it
moves between several intrapsychic possibilities; it constellates or interweaves
several constituents that belong to the wholeness of being.

2 Complex

In one of his first statements regarding the complex, Jung said that the
background of consciousness and unconsciousness consists of complexes that
manifest themselves in the form of associations (Jung 1906, par. 664). We
know the importance of the word association test in developing the concept
of complex in Jungian psychology and how errors came to be understood as
indicators of a psychic constitution (the presence of a complex). According to
Perrone:

What Wundt and his school interpreted as irrelevant ‘errors’ when analyzing the test
results actually provided elements to understand the psychical state of the patient.
Changes in associative processes that had been neglected before – such as
perseverance, long time to respond, lack of reaction, insufficient reproduction of the
stimulus word – indicated frequent emotional interference. This evidence has shown
the importance of the affective plan of associations. (Perrone, 2008, p. 45)

Jean Knox correlates the concept of complex, based on the word association
test with the concept of the internal working model, proposed by Bowlby:

Using the word association test, Jung also demonstrated the central role of emotion in
unconscious psychic structures, complexes, which influence us without our being
consciously aware of them. Jung’s description of the complex can be thought of as
one of the earliest formulations of the concept of the internal working model. (Knox
1999, p. 527)
514 Caetano & Machado

Errors or flaws that had formerly been considered irrelevant or disposable in

the initial analyses of association test results now opened the way for Jung,
with his curiosity, to perceive what would later be called the path or ‘the via
regia to the unconscious … the architect of dreams and of symptoms’ (Jung
1948, para. 210). Similar to geological fractures that reveal deep layers of the
earth, flaws in the association tests functioned as openings to understanding
the deepest expressions of the psyche, providing the formulation of the
concept of the complex based on affective tonality.
The Jungian attitude recognises several phenomena without establishing a
hierarchy among them. Therefore, we can agree with Jung when he says that
errors or defects have their place and that they are structuring:

... all the greatest and most important problems of life are fundamentally insoluble.
They must be so, for they express the necessary polarity inherent in every self-
regulating system. They can never be solved, but only outgrown. I therefore asked
myself whether this outgrowing, the possibility of further psychic development, was
not the normal thing and whether getting stuck in a conflict was pathological.
(1935, para. 18)

The notion that deformities, defects and flaws are integral elements of our
psyche is echoed by many authors. According to Marie-Louise von Franz: ‘It
is probable that our whole personality was originally built little by little from
these complexes’ (von Franz 1997, p. 55). Clarice Lispector, the Brazilian
writer, expresses the same idea in a poetic way: ‘Even to cut off our own
defects can be dangerous. We never know which defects support the whole
building’ (Lispector 2002, p. 165).
Similarly, Naomi, the character described by contemporary Japanese author
Murakami in his book Norwegian Wood, says: ‘… we are in here not to
correct the deformation but to accustom ourselves to it: that one of our
problems was our inability to recognize and accept our own deformities’
(Murakami 1990, p. 104, our italics).
The Jungian attitude explores the object, thought or image in a movement
known as ‘circumambulation’. This circular exploration favours the
knowledge or acknowledgement of multifarious aspects of the same reality,
providing a deeper and more comprehensive understanding that opens us to a
world of multiplicity, complexity and nonlinearity. Based on the concept of
psychic energy, Jung talks about the importance of movement and thus
proposes that pathology is an expression of lack of fluidity, a rigidity.
Gustav Bovensiepen suggests we focus on the existing relationship between
different complexes in the unconscious, rather than on their pathological
effects (2006). According to him, the theory of complexes relates to how the
psyche operates. He reminds us that, for Jung, the psyche is highly dissociable
and the various complexes are its building blocks, a model which is very
closely aligned with the latest findings of the neurosciences. Complexes, as
‘working units’ of the psyche may be organized in either a simple or complex
Complex in memory 515

manner. For him, complexes may be subnetworks of the matrix of all

intersubjective experiences that are internalized by a child and stored as
implicit memory (Bovensiepen 2006).
Complexes represent the inner fabric, the complex weave, the constellation,
the landscape that comprises each and every one of us. There is no hierarchy;
all aspects are important to each of our constellations, networks, landscapes
and weaves. Verena Kast speaks of a ‘network of complexes’ and a
‘landscape of complexes’ which can be revealed in association experiments
(Kast 1997, p. 48). The psyche is not a monolithic construction but a highly
complex and dissociable one. Affect is the connecting element between
many complexes or building blocks. In a footnote to his earlier writings,
Jung says that to refer to a complex as an ‘affective tonality’ is redundant
because there is no other alternative. In other words, he considers that for
something to be a complex it must have an affective tonality (Jung 1931,
para. 733)
Affect brings together the various lines, paths and possibilities that result in
the creation of images. We can speak of the landscape and complex as a
nodal point with the complex not as content but rather as a dynamic. The
image of the landscape refers to a whole made of many complexes. In the
words of Perrone:

The complex, the fruit of a constellation, creates new complexes, activates other
existing ones, and may also be responsible for constellating future secondary
associations. Both the consciousness of the moment and the unconsciousness are
the fruits of a complex constellation and agents of constellations. (Perrone
2008, p. 90)

A constellation is the configuration that emerges from the influence of

complexes. It is a dynamic movement, with different complexes activated at
different times carrying different characteristics and strengths. ‘Thoughts and
behaviors are constellated by complexes, depending on the intensity of
emotions’ (Jung 1941, para. 736). While we can name each node and each
block, we are actually more interested in the dynamics that create them and
the dynamism that organizes the psychic landscape.
Complexes may be thought of as positive centers, as well as nodal points of a
dynamic psychic life that we would not wish to do without. Indeed, they should
not be missing, for otherwise psychic activity would come to a ‘fatal standstill’
(1931, para. 925). We understand complexes as patterns, functional structures,
possibilities or psychical and neurobiological organizations. Constellated
complexes are composed of both structure and movement! Clarice Lispector
expresses this well in her poetic imagery: ‘I’m always reinventing myself,
opening and closing life circles, throwing them aside, seared, full of past. …
Moments so intense, red, condensed in themselves, which do not need a past
or a future to exist’ (Lispector 1980, p. 76).
516 Caetano & Machado

It is through these images that we understand and elaborate the complex; it is

also the way in which nowadays we understand how memory works. It is
because of the similarity of these working patterns both in analytical
psychology and neuroscience that we chose to title our paper: complex in
memory, mind in matter.

3 Memory

For an exploration of memory we will rely on neuroscience, that is: the

scientific study of the functions, structures, developmental processes and
potential alterations of the nervous system.
At the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, when
Freud and Jung started their studies in the field of medicine, psychology and
medicine walked hand in hand. However, in the course of the twentieth
century they drew further apart and developed in opposite directions. Hands
that were once united started to clash! During that period these two sciences
tended to disregard and even to reject and disqualify the other. On the one
hand, psychology did not acknowledge neuroscience, feeling that it reduced
the psyche and did not reach the ‘soul’. On the other hand, medicine did not
recognize the value of the analytical approach because it did not use scientific
methods to validate its efficiency.
Evaluation is a function of consciousness. The ego attributes value to the
world around it based on personal, familial and cultural determinants. It is
always very difficult for consciousness to value the unknown. It is easier and
quicker to discard it, put it aside, or transform it into a new, idealized God.
When we idealize the unknown other, we project our yearnings and desires.
As Jung suggests, movement between two polarities creates the possibility of
transcending both and finding a new perspective, a third.
By departing from and going beyond complex psychology, we can allow
ourselves to examine an object under a different, more nuanced light. As we
examine the psyche in the light of the neurosciences, it is possible to trace and
deepen our understanding of analytical concepts.
In the 1990s, a decade known as the ‘Decade of the Brain’, studies in the
neurosciences gained momentum because of new research on its functioning.
Researchers like Francis Crick, Gerald Edelman, Steven Pinker, Antonio
Damasio, among others, proposed theoretical models which attempted to
understand what they called ‘the great mystery’, a mental substrate of that we
call consciousness.
In the Jungian community, Miranda Davies, Margaret Wilkinson and Jean
Knox were the pioneers in the exciting task of building bridges between
Jungian theory and the new findings of the neurosciences. These writers used
the theoretical model of neuroscientists, such as Allan Schore, Daniel Siegel,
Antonio Damasio, Eric Kandel and Jaak Panksepp, among others, to establish
the foundations of this bridge. Specialists of different theoretical areas also
Complex in memory 517

addressed the topic and helped us greatly to understand and support our clinical
work. It is important to remember the studies of the Boston Change Process
Study Group, of Louis Cozolino and Peter Fonagy among others, who have
brought new and relevant insights about the work we do in our practice,
despite the use of a different theoretical model.
Major technological developments made it possible to observe and study the
brain in vivo and to conduct molecular research with speed and precision.
These advances have brought about changes in the paradigms related to the
functioning of the central nervous system. Many specialists propose
organizing these changes into two major areas: molecular and system
mapping. The models and dogmas that had to be re-examined in the light of
neuroscience have also contributed to our clinical understanding in the
practice of analytical psychology.
The molecular area started in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
with the work of Mendel and others on the heredity of information. This area
developed further when Watson and Crick identified the double helix
structure of the DNA thereby explaining how the mechanism works. Crick
posits: ‘The Central Dogma of molecular biology is: DNA produces RNA,
which produces proteins’ (Kandel 2009, pg. 269).
Thanks to research in epigenetics, we now know that the mechanism is not
that simple. The term epigenetics was initially used to describe the bridge
between a genotype and a phenotype during its development. We now
understand that an epigenome is modified throughout its life and that it is
sensitive to the influence of the environment. Everything we do can change
our genetic expression and that of future generations. This conclusion later
led to improving the definition to include the study of the mechanisms that
allow transgenerational transmission of such changes, without altering the
DNA. This is called ‘transgenerational epigenetics’ (Daxinger & Whitelaw
2012; Lim & Brunet 2013; Ferguson-Smith & Patti 2011). Recent
investigations (Mondal, T. et al. 2015) identified a third structure that
produces what is called the triple helix, which originates from the relationship
between DNA and RNA. This third thread emerges from the interaction
between what we are given a priori and our experience.
‘System mapping’ is another area that has undergone great change. The
German doctor, Karl Wernicke (1848-1905), a neuropathologist, neurologist
and psychiatrist known for his work with language deficits, proposed that the
most complex cognitive functions were caused by the interconnection between
various functional locations in the brain. He was the first to develop the idea
of allocated processing, a principle that is currently central to the
neurosciences. His thesis involved not only the study of certain areas of the
brain with all their specifications, but how these areas communicate with and
modulate each other.
Both the molecular and systemic points of view provide the foundations of
current developments concerning the functioning of the central nervous
518 Caetano & Machado

system. The study of synapses is representative of this new approach. It is

currently fundamental to the studies of memory and of neuroplasticity. It is
important to remember that neuroplasticity, also known as neuronal
plasticity, refers to the ability of the nervous system to change, adapt and
reshape at structural and functional levels throughout the individual’s lifespan
and when faced with new experiences.
During much of the twentieth century, it was believed that the CNS did not
change throughout life, that its structure and functioning were established in
the first years of life and were then indelibly in place. A parallel could be
made in psychology to the perception that the psychic structure of an
individual was established during the first initial relationships of the child and
that it was set for life. The first years of life represent a time of great
structuring and development of the central nervous system, but it does not
remain unchanged. It modifies throughout life and changes depending on life
experiences. The perception of a changing brain during life is much closer to
the Jungian view, which takes for granted the activation of complexes and
archetypes as part of the process of individuation throughout life.
The study on synapses is essential to the comprehension of neuroplasticity
and of the transformation of the brain throughout life. The first studies on
synapses, which are still valid today, were conducted by the early twentieth
century Spanish anatomist Cajal (1852-1934). By studying anatomy, he
proposed the morphology and functioning of neurons. The formation of
memory is intricately connected to synaptic formation and many studies
about memory walk hand in hand with those on synapses. Synapses are areas
where the neurons interlink. They are regions of interconnectedness that
enable the exchange of information between the various areas and that
modulate such communication.
It is mainly through the formation and enhancement of synaptic connections
that neural plasticity occurs. The map of the brain function is determined by the
creation or disappearance of synapses and the extent to which they are
enhanced or reduced. It is through synapses that the brain gains strength in
its plasticity. Synapses are like ‘ports’ where different ‘routes’ integrate and
communicate; they are the knots that interlace the various threads. Synaptic
formation is essential to memory. If we consider that memory represents the
ability to gather and retain information, we can understand the importance of
memory in enabling a faster and more effective response to the environment,
thereby allowing for better adaptation and survival.
Memory is the way that past events affect future functioning. In implicit
memory, there is no participation of the conscious ego in evocation and this
consciousness may or may not be present at the moment of formation;
whereas in explicit or autobiographical memory, consciousness is a
prerequisite for the moment of evocation. Explicit memory may be episodic
or personal (autobiographical memories) and semantical or factual (what,
when and where). To record this memory, focused attention and conscious
Complex in memory 519

perception are necessary. In order to collect autobiographical memories a sense

of self is necessary, even if it is incipient. The emergence of consciousness is
closely related to the development of memory.
According to neurophysiological studies, both explicit and implicit memories
are acquired through experience, whereas possibilities of connection are given
a priori. Implicit memory is directly related to the idea of complexes that are
far from consciousness and therefore present more independence from the
ego complex. Neuroscience correlates implicit memory to unconscious
memories and proves their automatic and independent quality in relation to
consciousness. Kandel writes ‘unconscious memories are in general
inaccessible to consciousness, nevertheless they exert a powerful effect on
behavior’ (Kandel 2009, p. 152).
Implicit memory is the source of the fundamental way in which we exist
in the world. It is connected to emotional content that is recorded and stored
in limbic structures. ‘Implicit elements of memory are part of the foundation
of our subjective sense of self, which filters the experience of the moment’
(Siegel 2012, p. 52). Similarly to Knox (1999, 2005), we suggest that the
model of the complex, with an emotional accent emphasized by Jung, closely
aligns with such mental models or schemes. Complexes represent ways of
being in the world and are unconscious patterns that organize our perception
and memory.

I have described the concept of implicit memory which stores schematic patterns of all
kinds of experience including experience of emotional relationships, but these
memories are stored in the form of unconscious patterns which are inaccessible to
conscious recall rather than as conscious memories of specific events. (Knox 1999,
p. 524)

According to Wilkinson, ‘to appreciate the existence of implicit memory allows

the concept of unconsciousness to include anatomical structures, where
emotional and affective experiences, and many times traumatic, pre-symbolic
ones are stored’ (Wilkinson 2010, p. 30).
Proust does a good job of describing the multiple memories triggered by the
smell of madeleines. In his writing, we are led by implicit and explicit
memories into his rich world of images woven together by feelings and
emotions. Through them, he is brought to create and give new meaning to his
history and identity. This experience echoes the words of Kandel, ‘We are
what we learn and remember’ (Kandel 2009, p. 94).
In the past, memory was thought of as an image/learning stored in specific
places, stagnated and going through very little change over time, an idle and
manageable object. However, what we now have is the idea of memory as a
living and continuous process.

I suspect the explicit mental images we evoke emerge from synchronic and temporary
activation of neural triggering patterns which, to a greater extent, occur in the
520 Caetano & Machado

same initial sensory cortices where triggering patterns corresponding to perceptive

representations previously took place. The activation results in an organized
topographic representation. (Damasio 1996, p. 128)

Memory is constellated when there is a synchronic illumination of several

brain areas that represent images, sounds, smells, ideas or emotions. The
consolidation of memory occurs through synaptic alterations. We know that
experience modifies synapses. Cajal suggested that learning could change the
strength of synapses between neurons, thereby strengthening communication
between them (Kandel 2009, p. 180).
Through various experiments, Kandel (ibid.) has proved that learning leads
to a change in the strength of synaptic connections and therefore to the
effectiveness of communication. Several studies have been carried out to
explore how changes in synaptic connections occur, leading to the molecular
level, since the synaptic alterations occur due to protein synthesis resulting in
morphological changes. This process is subject to modulation through many
pathways, which are related to emotions, mood, and alertness. Protein
synthesis is regulated by the emotional contents and states that are present in
lived experiences. ‘The bigger the emotion, the greater the activation of the
consolidation of that memory’ (Izquierdo 2011, p. 90). From analytical
psychology, we know that the greater the emotion, the greater the activation
in the consolidation of the complex.
Two factors are important in long-term memory formation: repetition and
the emotional charge to which this memory is subjected during its creation
and corresponding processes of evocation. These processes of increased
synaptic strength and protein synthesis do not occur only when a memory is
first formed, but in every evocation. Once evoked, the memory undergoes all
these processes again and is codified once more, that is, it associates to the
new information of the moment and to the affective realm where it is relived
and updated through new connections. Within the context of a process of
learning and adaptation, these redefinitions allow for a constant updating of
learning. This process relates directly to the functioning of the complex and
its constant redefinition. This reconceptualization motivates us to review and
revise our clinical practice: memories are not idle objects, they are living
constellations that gain new outlines, forms and definitions at each new
evocation. Memory is a living and continuous system and so is the complex.
As Saint Augustine wrote:

It is abundantly clear that neither the future nor the past exists and therefore it is not
strictly correct to say that there are three times the past, the present and the future. It
might be more correct to say that there are three times: a present of past things, a
present of present things and a present of future things. Some such different times,
do exist in the mind but nowhere else that I can see. The present of past things is
memory, the present of present things is direct perception and the present of future
things is expectation. (St. Augustine 1964, XI, 20, 1)
Complex in memory 521

If memory leads us to the issue of that which is in constant reconstruction, it

also establishes the relationship between what is given a priori and what
derives from experiences. To quote Kandel:

Genetic and developmental processes specify the connections among neurons - that
is, which neurons form synaptic connections with which other neurons and when.
But they do not specify the strength of those connections. Strength - the long-term
effectiveness of synaptic connections - is regulated by experience. (Kandel 2010,
p. 226)

This now provides us with a framework to talk about the relationship between
the concepts of archetype and complex. Archetypes are given to us a priori,
whereas complexes are a result of our interaction with the environment.
Kandel also relates the concepts proposed by Kant and Locke, which were
previously exclusive but now composite parts of the same phenomenon: memory.

The anatomy of the neural circuit is a simple example of Kantian a priori knowledge,
while changes in the strength of particular connections in the neural circuit reflect the
influence of experience. Moreover, consistent with Locke’s notion that practice makes
perfect, the persistence of such changes underlies memory. (Kandel 2009, p. 227)

Experience gives shape to who we are, but the underlying circuit lines are
determined a priori. Following the view of interrelation, we could understand
that several different archetypical paths are necessary for the constellation of
complexes. As we use expressions like crossroads and ports in reference to
synapses, we could also consider complexes to be crossroads or ports where
various archetypes meet and intertwine. We propose that there are archetypes
with greater affinity that carry meeting pathways a priori. For instance, in the
formation of the ego complex the mother and father archetypes are side
by side, constantly crisscrossing. It is important to consider not only the
archetype per se but the interconnectedness of archetypes as well, since
archetypes also have archetypical patterns of interconnection between them.
We also have the interconnectedness of complexes. If the interaction
between archetypes is the network where the complex constellates, the
interconnectedness of complexes generates behaviour in response to certain
experiential stimuli. Jolande Jacobi discusses the issue of proximity of
complexes to the complex of the self (Jacobi 1987). In our practice, this can
be a helpful guide: the greater the distance between them, the greater is the
autonomy of the complex. Jung examines the question of the interrelationship
between complexes by using only the ego as a reference. But if we consider
movement in terms of intrapsychic dynamics, how can we not think about the
interconnectedness between them?
In neurophysiological studies, interconnectedness between areas and neural
regions occur through the activation or inhibition of one over the other.
These activations and inhibitions happen all the time in many areas and with
522 Caetano & Machado

varying intensity. It is through these mechanisms that modulation and

configuration of certain behaviors occur. In other words, a certain behavior is
displayed insofar as one complex is activated and another is inhibited.
Casting light in some areas and applying shade to others creates the inner
psychic landscape. This brings us to the analytic relationship, where we can
examine the landscape of the sessions from this perspective.

4 The analytic relationship or the landscape of sessions

In the analytic relationship, we remake memories and expand paths, and error
is our guiding thread. And, in the same way that the error led us to the complex,
in the neurosciences, errors and imperfections of memory are objects of study.
Izquierdo (2005) considers forgetfulness to be one of the axes for research into
memory. He says that forgetting begins in ‘choosing’ what will not be fixed.
Short-term memory processes a great amount of information and only part of
it is elaborated to be transformed into long-term memory. The emotional
charge that pervades each experience, as well as the bonds with previous
experiences it creates, gives an outline and a meaning to the memory. The
persistence of a memory – or the lack of it – will be determined by the amount
of time it is remembered, by the emotional charge associated with it and by the
possibility of anchoring new experiences. Therefore, memories with a light
emotional charge are not remembered and tend to disappear.
It is necessary to forget in order to remember. We are not talking about
pathological cases such as Alzheimer’s disease for instance, but alterations of
errors that constitute our daily life and enable psychic structuring that is
deemed normal. We are, then, required to think about other mistakes of
memory or false memories.

But recalling a memory episodically - no matter how important the memory - is not
like simply turning to a photograph in an album. Recall of memory is a creative
process. What the brain stores is thought to be only a core memory. Upon recall,
this core memory is then elaborated upon and reconstructed, with subtractions,
additions, elaborations and distortions. (Kandel 2009, pg. 309).

Daniel Schacter, an American psychologist, classified imperfections of memory

into seven basic categories and named them the ‘seven sins of memory’.
They are: bias, transience, absentmindedness, blocking, misattribution,
suggestibility and persistence. Each of these mistakes or ‘sins’ raises
interesting questions that can be easily related to our clinical practice.
However, for the purpose of this paper we will focus on two of these ‘sins of
memory’, that of bias and suggestibility.
Errors related to bias ‘reflect the powerful influence of our current knowledge
and beliefs on how we remember our past’ (Schacter 2011). Bias relates to how
the individual codifies an experience based on consolidated memories, an idea
that is very familiar to us. We know that the complexes we have - or those
Complex in memory 523

that have us - determine how we interpret new experiences and the way
memories related to them are consolidated. This also happens within the
technological universe. We know that algorithms of search engines such as
Google are developed from previous searches in such a way that the same
key word will produce different results for different people, depending on
the previous search of each of them. Our vision of the world is reinforced
at every new research. This means we receive more of the same. The
challenge here is to expand and give a new meaning to our perception of
the world. Analytical work justifies just such a new perception, a new
outlook, a new bias. Analytical work offers the challenge of accepting a
consolidated view, of questioning the easier and obvious answer and
offering a new perspective, shedding a new light and illuminating contents
from a different perspective.
Suggestibility on the other hand is supported by the relationship with the
other. It refers to the tendency to incorporate new external information into
memory, generally as a result of questions and suggestions. It reflects the
influence of others or how the intersubjectivity of relationship participates in
the formation and redefinition of memories and complexes. This question
highlights an aspect of fundamental importance to our clinical practice. To
clarify a question, or to accentuate an aspect of what is being said by the
patient, is tantamount to suggesting or introducing our ‘personal equation’. In
clinical practice, we have on one side the way the patient hears the therapist’s
question and how he or she interprets the analyst’s statements. On the other,
we have what the analyst chooses to ask, how he or she develops the question
and what he or she remembers about the stories that have been told.
What and how we ask, what we forget and remember, are reflective of our
own personal equation. Considering this intersubjective aspect, we can say
that assessing and understanding the results of our work is a challenge.
The effectiveness of psychodynamic psychotherapies, including the Jungian
approach, is the subject of much discussion and research by specialists in
these areas. The German clinical psychologist and Jungian analyst Christian
Roesler, published an interesting article in 2013 where he reviews studies that
show evidence of the efficacy of long-term Jungian psychotherapy. Examining
the results of three studies, he demonstrates that the data confirmed positive
and long-lasting effects in patients affected by various disorders. In addition
to indications of important positive changes after the end of the work, the
effects remained stable after six years of follow-up in therapy (Roesler 2013).
According to the author, ‘this could be important evidence of the fact that
analytical psychotherapy not only changes the symptoms, but also the
structure of the personality in a very deep way, which leads the subject to
better adapt to life and relationships’ (ibid., p. 566).
While performing a meta-analysis of the growing research on the
effectiveness of psychodynamic psychotherapy, Shedler (2010) cites empirical
evidence. He observes in several studies data demonstrating that, in addition
524 Caetano & Machado

to being beneficial, its effects are not transient; on the contrary, they are long-
lasting and increase over time. ‘Especially noteworthy is the recurring finding
that the benefits of psychodynamic therapy not only endure but increase with
time’ (Shedler 2010, pg. 102).
What mechanisms anchor these long-lasting changes? Is it possible that
the analytical process provides an arena that enables and consolidates
interconnections that foster a better intrapsychic transition? We can
understand that the analytical process not only increases consciousness by
incorporating unconscious content into it but that it also encourages us to
access unconscious content. This very process creates new pathways which
then incorporate and consolidate interconnections between the conscious and
unconscious, as well as between complexes and between archetypes. Just as
synaptic alterations redesign our neural architecture, these new pathways or
routes redefine our psyche. If, on the one hand, we have the issue of what
provides efficacy to psychotherapy, on the other, there is the issue of who the
providing agent is.
Shedler posits that the type of theoretical approach is not important, what
matters is the practice of each therapist. In his own words: ‘What takes place
in the consulting room reflects the qualities and style of the individual
therapist, the individual patient, and the unique patterns of interaction that
develop between them’ (Shedler 2010, p. 103).
The American psychiatrist, Daniel Stern, speaks of ‘moments of meeting’, a
moment between two participants when the intersubjective field is transformed
and the relationship altered: ‘It cannot be a general technical response, but it
must be a specific, authentic one, that carries the therapist’s signature, so to
speak’ (Stern 2004, p. 244) - a personal equation. The analytical meeting is
not only a partnership attempting to enhance the perception of self and the
world, but it also involves sharing nuances; it involves reviewing the story
from another light, with its own brilliance, originating from a personal
equation.
The psychotherapeutic relationship is a sacred and protected space where
repetitive patterns and themes experienced by the patient find room to emerge
and to be elaborated. Analyst and patient establish a personal and unique
relationship in each meeting, in each process. It is a relationship of
intersubjectivity, a state of deep contact, a meeting where an affective
resonance transforms the relationship, creating a field that goes beyond the
meeting field itself. There is a qualitative leap where the landscape of the
meeting asserts itself and a third one arises: ‘Tertium non datur’.
The unconscious is relational. It is here and now and at each moment is
constellated and transformed during the meeting between the patient and the
psychotherapist. The analytic relationship - the moment of the true meeting -
allows the creation of a third path, the third. Epigenetics provides us with
evidence of this third and shows how the analytic process can impact memory
and thereby also our complexes.
Complex in memory 525

Conclusion
In this paper we have explored Jung’s notion of complex psychology from the
perspective of analytical psychology neuroscience, complex-memory and mind-matter.
Memory and complex both comprise dynamic aspects and are therefore capable
of change. They are living entities in constant transformation. The analytic
meeting promotes the creation of a third thread, which fosters profound changes:
‘Movement is only another name for mastery.’ (Jung 1957, para. 38)
References
Bovensiepen, G. (2006). ‘Attachment-Dissociation Network: some thoughts about a
modern complex theory’. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 51, 451-466.
Cambray, J. (2009). Synchronicity: Nature and Psyche in an Interconnected Universe.
Texas: Texas A&M University Press.
Casement, A. (2007). Who owns Jung? London: Karnack Books.
Cozolino, L. (2006). The Neuroscience of Human Relationships. New York: W. W.
Norton & Company.
——— (2010). The Neuroscience of Psychotherapy. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company.
——— (2016). Why Therapy Works? New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Crick, F. H. C. (1994). The Astonishing Hypothesis. New York: Touchstone.
Damasio, A. (1996). O Erro de Descartes. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras.
Daxinger, L., & Whitelaw, E. (2012). ‘Understanding transgenerational epigenetic
inheritance via the gametes in mammals’. National Review of Genetics 13, 153–162.
Ferguson-Smith, A.C., & Patti, M.E. (2011). ‘You are what your dad ate’. Cell
Metabolism 13(2), 115–117.
Izquierdo, I. (2005). A arte de esquecer. Rio de Janeiro: Vieira & Lent.
——— (2011). Memória. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
Izquierdo, I.; Carvalho, M.; Benetti, F. et al. (2013). ‘Memória: tipos e mecanismos –
achados recentes’. Revista USP, n. 98, p. 9-16.
Jacobi, J. (1987). Complexo, arquétipo, Símbolo. São Paulo: Cultrix.
Jantsch, E. (1993). ‘L’interdisciplinarité: lê rêves et la réalité’. Perspectives, vol. X, No. 3,
1980. in: Weil, P.; D’Ambrosio, U.; Crema, R. ‘Rumo à nova transdisciplinaridade:
sistemas abertos de conhecimento’. São Paulo: Summus.
Jung, C. G. (1906/1990). Experimental researches, CW 2. New York: Princeton
University Press.
——— (1931/1990). Psychological types, CW 6. New York: Princeton University Press.
——— (1934/1981). The structure and the dynamics of the psyche, CW 8. New York:
Princeton University Press.
——— (1935/1989). The symbolic life, CW 18. New York: Princeton University Press.
——— (1938/1983). Alchemical studies, CW 13. New York: Princeton University Press.
——— (1948/1980). The symbolic life: miscellaneous writings. CW Vol 18.
——— (1957). The Undiscovered Self (Present and Future).
Kandel, E. R. (2009). Em busca da memória. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras.
Kandel, E. R.; Schwartz, J.; Jessell, T.M.; Siegelbaum, S. & Hudspeth, A.J. (2014).
Princípios de Neurociência. Porto Alegre: Artmed Editora.
Kast, V. (1997). A dinâmica dos símbolos. São Paulo: Edições Loyola.
Knox, J. (1999). ‘The relevance of attachment theory to a contemporary Jungian view of
the internal world: internal working models, implicit memory and internal objects’.
Journal of Analytical Psychology, 44, 511-530.
——— (2005). Archetype, Attachment, Analysis. London: Routledge.
526 Caetano & Machado

Lim, J.P. & Brunet, A. (2013). ‘Bridging the transgenerational gap with epigenetic
memory’. Trends Genet 29(3), 176-186.
Lispector, C. (1980). Perto do coração selvagem. Rio de Janeiro: Rocco.
——— (2002). Corespondências. Rio de Janeiro: Rocco.
Mazzio, E. A. & Solliman, K. F. (2012). ‘Basic concepts of epigenetics’. Epigenetics 7:2,
119-130; www.landesbioscience.com; accessed on fev/2016
Mondal, T. et al. (2015). ‘MEG3 long noncoding RNA regulates TGF-β pathway genes
through formation of RNA–DNA triplex structures’. Nature Communications.
6:7743 https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8743.
Morin, E. (2005). Ciencia com consciência. Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand.
Murakami, H. (1990). Norwegian Wood. New York: Vintage International Books.
Penna, E.M.D. (2013). Epistemologia e método na obra de C. G. Jung. São Paulo: Educ: Fapesp.
Perrone, M.P.M.S.B. (2008). Complexo: conceito fundante na construção da psicologia
de Carl Gustav Jung. Tese de Doutorado, Instituto de Psicologia, Universidade de São
Paulo, São Paulo. doi: https://doi.org/10.11606/T.47.2008.tde-30072009-135120.
Proust, M. (1987). Em busca do tempo perdido. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Globo.
Roesler, C. (2013). ‘Evidence for effectiveness of Jungian psychotherapy: a review or
empirical estudies’. Behavioral Sciences (3), pp. 562-575.
St. Agostinho. (1964). Confissões XI:20. Lisboa: Lusosofia.net.
Schacter D.L., Guerin S.A., & St. Jacques P. L. (2011). ‘Memory distortion: an adaptive
perspective’. Trends Cognitive Science, 15: 467-474.
Schore, A.N. (2012). The Science of the Art of Psychotherapy. New York: W.W. Norton
& Company.
Shamdasani, S. (2005). Jung e a Construção da Psicologia Moderna. Aparecida, São
Paulo: Idéias e letras.
Shedler, J. (2010). ‘The efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy’. American
Psychologist, 65, n. 98-109.
Siegel, D. J. (2012). The Developing Mind. New York: The Gilford Press.
Squire, L.R. & Kandel, E.R. (2009). From Mind to Molecules. Greenwood Village,
Colorado: Roberts & Company.
Stapp, H.P. (2011). Mindful Universe. Berkeley: Springer Publications.
Stern, D.N. (2004). The Present Moment in Psychotherapy and Everyday Life. New
York: Norton Press.
Trismegistus, Hermes. (2011). The Emerald Tablet. EUA: Pacific Publishing Studio.
Von Franz, M. (1997). C.G. Jung - Seu mito em nossa época. São Paulo: Cultrix.
Wilkinson, M. (2006). Coming into Mind. London: Routledge.
——— (2010). Changing Minds in Therapy. London: W. W. Norton & Company.

TRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT

Cet article propose une conversation entre les neurosciences et la psychologie analytique
au travers des concepts de mémoire et de complexe. Nous discutons la Psychologie des
Complexes proposée par Jung et les liens potentiels avec les notions de
transdisciplinarité. Nous appelons « attitude Jungienne » le positionnement qui permet
un travail avec l’interconnectivité, dans des champs de connaissance divers. Cet article
se penche sur le savoir actuel des neurosciences dans le domaine de la mémoire et
explore le concept de complexe dans la littérature de la psychologie analytique.
L’article propose que de tels concepts soient considérés comme des entités vivantes en
constante transformation. Il attribue la possibilité de repenser la relation entre
complexes et archétypes au modèle de l’interconnectivité. L’article suggère également
que l’on regarde la relation analytique dans la pratique clinique en s’appuyant sur des
Complex in memory 527

développements qui proviennent d’approximations entre les neurosciences et la

psychologie analytique, éclairant les aspects transformateurs du travail thérapeutique.

Mots clés: neurosciences, psychologie analytique, mémoire, complexe, relation

analytique, interconnectivité, psychologie des complexes, attitude Jungienne

Dieser Artikel schlägt einen Dialog zwischen Neurowissenschaften und Analytischer

Psychologie über die Konzepte von Gedächtnis und Komplex vor. Wir diskutieren die
von Jung entworfene Komplexe Psychologie und mögliche Verbindungen mit den
Ideen der Transdisziplinarität. Wir nennen ’Jungianische Haltung’ diejenige Haltung,
die Arbeit mit Vernetzung verschiedener Wissensgebiete ermöglicht. Der Artikel
betrachtet den aktuellen Wissensstand der Neurowissenschaften in Bezug auf das
Gedächtnis und untersucht das Konzept der Komplexe in der Literatur der
Analytischen Psychologie. Es wird vorgeschlagen, solche Konzepte als lebende
Einheiten in ständiger Transformation zu betrachten. Hierin wird eine Möglichkeit des
Überdenkens der Beziehung zwischen Komplexen und Archetypen einerseits und zum
Modell der Vernetzung andererseits gesehen. Auch wird vorgeschlagen, daß wir die
analytische Beziehung in der klinischen Praxis als auf Entwicklungen beruhend
betrachten, die aus Approximationen zwischen den Neurowissenschaften und der
Analytischen Psychologie erwachsen und welche Licht auf transformierende Aspekte
der psychotherapeutischen Arbeit werfen.

Schlüsselwörter: Neurowissenschaft, Analytische Psychologie, Gedächtnis, Komplex,

analytische Beziehung, Komplexpsychologie, Jungianische Haltung

Questo articolo propone un confronto tra le neuroscienze e la psicologia analitica

attraverso i concetti di memoria e di complesso. Discuteremo la Psicologia
Complessuale proposta da Jung e le potenziali interconnessioni con la nozione di
transdisciplinarità. Definiamo “Attitudine junghiana” l’assetto che facilita il lavoro con
l’interconnettività, attraverso vari campi del sapere. L’articolo riflette sull’attuale
conoscenza delle neuroscience in riferimento alla memoria ed esamina il concetto di
complesso nella letteratura della psicologia analitica. Propone che questi concetti siano
considerati come entità viventi in costante trasformazione. L’articolo suggerisce la
possibilità di ri-pensare la relazione tra complessi ed archetipi nel modello della
interconnettività. Suggerisce anche di guardare alla relazione analitica nella pratica
clinica sulla base degli sviluppi che derivano dalle approssimazioni tra neuroscienze e
psicologia analitica, illuminando gli aspetti trasformativi del lavoro psicoterapeutico.

Parole chiave: neuroscienze, psicologia analitica, memoria, complesso, relazione

analitica, interconnessione, psicologia dei complessi, attitudine junghiana

Эта статья приглашает к диалогу между нейронаукой и аналитической психологией с

помощью понятий памяти и комплекса. Мы обсуждаем теорию комплексов Юнга и
понтенциальные взаимосвязи с междисциплинарными идеями. Мы называем
528 Caetano & Machado

«юнгианской установкой» позицию, которая позволяет работать с взаимосвязью и

разными областями знаний. В статье приводится обзор современных представлений
нейронаук о памяти, исследуется понятие комплекса в литературе по аналитической
психологии. Предполагается, что эти понятия являются живыми сущностями,
претерпевающими постоянную трансформацию. Обсуждается возможность нового
осмысления отношений между комплексами и архетипами и модели взаимосвязанности.
Мы смотрим на аналитические отношения в клинической практике, основываясь на
результатах аппроксимации между нейронаукой и аналитической психологией,
проливая свет на трансформирующие аспекты психотерапевтической работы.

Ключевые слова: нейронаука, аналитическая психология, память, комплекс,

аналитические отношения, взаимосвязанность, психология комплексов, юнгианская
установка

El presente artículo propone una interlocución entre la neurociencia y la psicología

analítica a través de los conceptos de memoria y complejo. Discutimos la Psicología de
los Complejos propuesta por Jung y las interconexiones potenciales con nociones de
transdisciplina. Denominamos “actitud Junguiana”, la posición que nos permite
trabajar de manera interconectada a través de diversos campos del conocimiento. El
artículo contempla el conocimiento actual de las neurociencias respecto de la memoria
y examina el concepto de complejo dentro de la literatura de la psicología analítica.
Propone que tales conceptos sean considerados como entidades vivas en constante
transformación. Adscribe a la posibilidad de repensar la relación entre complejo y
arquetipo desde el modelo de interconexión. También sugiere que podamos mirar a la
relación analítica en la práctica clínica sobre la base de desarrollos resultantes de la
aproximación entre neurociencias y psicología analítica, vertiendo luz sobre los
aspectos transformadores del trabajo psicoterapéutico.

Palabras clave: neurociencia, psicología analítica, memoria, complejo, relación analítica,

interconexión, psicología compleja, actitud Junguiana

记忆中的情结,物质中的思想:手牵手的前行
这篇文章通过记忆和情结概念,呈现了一个在神经科学和分析心理学之间的问答。
我们讨论了荣格提出的情结心理学,以及在跨学科视角中可能存在的一些潜在关联。我
们把“荣格流派的态度”称为一种立场,它允许多种领域的知识相互联通。这篇文章深
度思考了关于记忆的神经学研究的当前认识,并检视了在分析心理学文献中关于情结的
概念。它提出,这些概念可以被看作是持续变化中的,有生命的存在。它提出了,从互联
模型的角度重新思考情结与原型关系的可能性。它还建议,基于神经科学与分析心理学
的关联研究的新进展,来看待临床实践中的分析性关系,以便更好地促进心理治疗工作
中那些转化性的方面。

关键词: 神经科学, 分析心理学, 记忆, 情结, 分析性的关系, 互联, 情结心理学, 荣格流派

的态度