Introductionror a period of yean before the pubfialtion of the
ftnt volume -ofbi! lllaW:rplece -.4 (19'12, co-autbormwith Felix
Gwarwi), Gi11e& Deleuze explored a af different theories ofthe
tln(:OQtdOWi. He appears 1IQ have inbabin:d a wnishlng in
FrenchintellEctual Piem'! janet's psychology 'Of the UficorOOous
5tilllr.l.d some parity wiUi Sigmund Freud'., Deleuze went poo\OUng
in 8. numberof ob!lcureplaUI'Se ofindiYidlDtiQu a diakcrical, arui
the: llO'i:alled ill the confrom:ation ofthe egt> with the the
centre. Here the limit ' new order of validity, bcycmd the order of
actual &cL'Ihe emergence of memory tlI:rou.gh the wne of
indetermination opent upa mteriori2ed whkh peoceeds I'D evolve in
tension withthe more tendencies of inwllige.oce. Accmding to
Deleuze, thei$$ue here is not ultirn:ittcly whether memories can or
cannot be localized inthe brain. Even if Iheycould be I.ocaJ.iwj in
MUt'Ofial connections, char. would aside the fact that 'lrir.b the
of difference (the partiCU'-tar memories), a new relationship which
mwi be articulated in tcJ1Dll ofvinualiJ:y and actuality, Memariell
are preserved in 1M ""'fill, and muM there-fore ilIlDlehow coulat
with the attenbon to present reality that myCOIUclOUlIllesli.
1"Iti!i reJatiomhip requires a. diflen:nt fuunework fur than does
the evolubonary process in In w twentieth (mtury, man)' phUotophm
in !he postKantlan trad.idon,Sartre pemaps being the gm.u M:ampJe,
insiBted on treating the mind M a 'foriudi' beca.\J$e of the qf
beyond the- of thepb),ical. Following Kant, amsclOlU.Rea mwt be
taken as: irnplicitk' Jlelf..wnKiow.. In "J"h,s of SFit Hegel says
that OOmciowlnellill isimplldtly selfrk'
(tkrpml90'1;S}.28Paramnesia and the Thansrendental Synthesis of
Memory ofa 8erponian thewy of mind i3more oornp16,an It oeI not
rest on the foregoil'l3l1iXOUDt of the psyUnts "rim perception?
19(18; 129)Now, bef instinctmet with only qualified aceepcmce. AL
the beginning of !.he twentieth century.the notion of imti:na
be-came a for debatelO about the range or t.h.tttheory of evolution
in the !are niN!1eenth t:enl:U.rY. Bergson's complaintagainst
Darwin in C,eaUv4 Ewl14t.on W3tl conantrlil.rCd SJ"ound the que:mon
0(imtin In h'is 1917 mT\o'f'Y of dine \':rends andtheir
pltilmlOphica.t origi.n$, Imti.nct in Man. James DreveT notes the
sim:ilarirybet.weeP Berg$0 an observer as Fabre and 50 eminent a
philOM:>-ph...r :itS Bergson' (.R.uMclJ 1921: 56) .From 1920
onw:m:Js, a vebemern reactionfb.red up the throreUcai e.xce!l$($ of
contemporary i.r-t.3timt theorv, andbt:h that goet (D work like
consdou$1leu :andmemory' cut off from 10. latent 'save at one 01'
twO polntli that areofvital l;OttCenl to the jUllt anlefi'. a
foomote mggesting(00t "theM! ptnmJ ounpond kJ the outmnding pointli
mat became detaChed Q1: [organic Each line of differentiarlon or
acroallsationthus comtiwces il 'plan(C (plan) of that ta.ke6 up
again in its own way avinu3l !lI&:tion Or level' How this
analogy with memorv (with its'dominant rcrollec.tioJl$') is mpposed
to work. given mat the 'mem';ry' of ev0-lution is located in the
gene, is mysU!rioos.IfDeleuu'$ biologkal a.pt>lication of the
notion of \lirtualit reSt\ quiedyonan of Bergson'lI theory of
lnJtin}mbOOc: munml ofreality mighl have badI.n earUu. abaic
hiliwric:aJ epocbi,But convenely ill it poI1l!Iibk ro foresee a
complete de-animation of :nature,when the retnnan1.ll of the
symbolic origins of reality are entirely forcedunderground into
&.ntuy thinbng? 'The first level of reality would rowev.aniMled
from the human being's rt:lationmipi to the world. amiwould be
completely intcm.alized in the uncon!Kious. In tbllt t:aSe. the
normalhuman being would llQ( :an invrrted pThis notion of the
WlOODlICiowi as the 'superior' subject reappears in variouspIaL:es
in Dck:ure. In and Oeleuu discu.sses Nietzsche'sclaim that we: live
in the: of the 'modestyofcOllllCioUllllelS': 'To remind
con-3dou.mess of necessary explains, 'is to take it for what itis:
a symptom' This is indeed an allusion to Freud', demand that
'weemancipate 0tlf1clves from the impoctance of the symptom of
'being ron-KiOUll' (SE 14: 193), but Dcleuze'.s t:rliYeClOry here
is not fundamentallyFreudian. Delewe continues that
con..,,:loWlnCllll is 'nothing but a syntpt.Om ofa deeper
u;msfonruuion and of the activities of entirely nOlHpirltuaI
rorce:'!' ,Wbat is this process of 't:ran.rd"ormarlOn', which wU1
be IOllledUng other thanreprellllion and the struggle wilh the
return of the OeJeuze's NVI-:.sdJ.e and Ph.ilmopkJ is deeply
teleological in deplcdng a twofoldhistorical and ethical movement
through the night of nihilism, and towardsindividuation. 'produces
the individual as its fma] goal, where spermore important to fmd
out wh3t really the activity of meuro::.ooliciOWl. The pooitive
function of lhe unCOnscioUi is, in !.be main,merely dis\wbed by
;and thi$ c:Mtll'I"blulce of iu natura.! activity iiiperhap$ th
mott importl1l'l.t llOun:e of the pll)'(:hogenic illneue:fl,(CW8:
364)Jung's Theory of InstinctIn mul mut 1M LimiltJ. his
breakdlrough of1911-12, Jung deelop; a recapitulatory model of
uneonJl("iow repedrioo.However. be !lOOn abandooed (M theory fur a
meory of'uche-lYJlC$' generated in part from 8crpm's tbeory of
instinct. Jtmg's 19191ecturt-00 '!nlltina and me Unconsciow.' Wti
delivered at a symposium in Londonwith the title, jointly
Ofga.nizerl by the Mtish Sodety, theAristotelian Society.::md the
Mind Some ' Foc inswu:'e, the in8tina for attachment illaccompanied
by the archetype of the mother;. In 5tevelJlland Price luneR mal
what e'\'!t'1ludonary pl)'ChoJoPts refer to as'evolved
psycbological mechanisma' {Di!.wd au.}. or
'psychobiologicalmlIpOllIe patterns' (Paul Gilben) are
lJilin1at.ely identical to I'tbat jung lfU ilacing widl his notion
of archet}'pe. 'An:hef.)'pel are as units which C"\IOtved through
natural ededion and wl:tith e furdetermining the behavioural
characteristics ..well u the and c.ognime typkaJ of human beinp'
(Ste"nI and Price 2000: 6).- ifJung was already retTac:ting in 1918
h1s l..amareIWm !iuggesrionof year that archetypeS are 'depoili!l
of the comtandy repealedexperiente$ ofhumanity', then. hill turn to
BeTp:m in 1919 ind.ic'.un tlw. heal50 was reluaant to go down iii.
Darwinian path. 'MoreO'RT, deJpite hismore inclinedSIalerM!D1liI
bter on, late as 1955jungstill opted(0 explain the distinction and
Image in termsconsistent ""ttl hb earIet approllldt, even referring
1.0 the proverbial wasp and '1bislCrm is not meant to denote an
inherited idea,but .rather an l.nherltl lllOde of functioning.
corresponding to theinborn way in which the chid froto the eu. the
bird bu.iIds i1:5 ne'8t..a ceriain kind of wasp Jtin.p the motor
pngtioD of the and Nitfind their way to the Bertnudal.ln
other'WOrds. it is a. "pattern of behamur'"{CW 18: !)l8),5 The echo
ofFahre:and Beqpon's 1'IIlIIiIp Iha.tJung baill.not hinwelf
entirely from his earlier ideas.Some concempo.rary Ju.ngia:ruI
argue that Me DOl geneticaDyprogrammed but are i:mk:ad
llpariou:mpor.al lICIrenwa Ulit .in the his 1918 paper 'The BDte of
the ills*r that there luaJ CouldJunghe pointing, however
oblicurely, to :lome poliIlible synthesis of instinct and Kandan
productive imagination? Even though Jung's theor-etical iU'e
obecure, Deleuze would certainly M'l'e real them interest.and the
faa r.haJ: he went on to take up the theory of arcber:ypet
(panphraangthis same lect.ure ofjung's) indicat'S thar he an
opport'lmh:y for theoretical:W.wnce here. Gtven the probk'ms we in
8erpon' thMl)' ofimtina., i:r is possible that Deleuze perceived
that a Jungian modification of theset':ond imtint:t mlgbt be the
wa:y [0l"JI!r.lJ'dMoR' :u:tltely, in order tOr the insliru:t l:Q
romwmnatt- itseH" through92 of the image, f'epreaentatiornd
(;onKiowness'lWukl to he Now thit suppression obl,i(lU&Iy be
moreproblematic in human beings., whose ctm!!ciowmetll ia dominated
by genu and its habits. Like 8l:rg!0Il and Deleuze, Jung also
believes that humallbeings do not have mstinctJ in me lIa1ne way
that animals qo. In fact., 'it is pmman's turning awar &001
i.rurlnct - his opposing hiImelf to inmnct - thatcre-citei
comciouaneu' . CM.Iizcd cOrulCiou&ness emerges with the
differentia-tion of the ego mat if. the result of an increased on
lnt:elJigem. (;Ofl.oc1oum.es4- ForJung, the consequence of the
differentiation of1:he ego is thetendentia1 dc-Jty only at! that of
an Other' (DR 58'!. Deleuze thU$ sugg'e!t5 that il is thevery
In:lpollliil>tlitv of appropriating the 'I think" il;i one'$ own
thai: Elli ow theguararllet' of l.tJ; purity, and it is thi5 that
helps us ascend from Jtage of ol1eclon to that of 'r.epetil:ion'.
In Differmce and &prl:itwn I>eLeuze I:U1'm (0Rkoeur's
aCCOunt of the :relauon of to the tJ:1il.rJSCelldnw '1think',
Ricoeur that Freud's aa:ount of narcissism that any cidence of the
'1 think' with its owtl being 11> open to $l:I1lpiaon that it ia
false. narcissistic rio 'As liOOt U the aporlktlc trn.th, I tJsiM.
181R unem:i.it is blocked by a pseoolH:\'idtmu'. and goes on to
ll'Uggest that jfldea$ are 'problematic' that might be becallllC
'conveneh-, problems are Ideas'(DR 168). PerMpt mCTe ...e notjUlt
ttk.u - perhaps evc;ry genuine l4L$ the struct:J.u1e thaI Kanf
auribl.lted to Ideas.. Perhaps the activityof conceptual a radicaJ
new dimenllion intQ Kantian thought, all it meanJIthat knowledge
and experience are not. ultimately to be Ken in terms of
meedi.tcretf :JCU but a.Iwa;'s in termIi ofsolutions to problems.
Estab--lished KnO'iliedge. in other worm, .iii really nothing bur
realm of lhhed solutions. If IdeM are to be thO'llghr. p.rirnarily
as problems. um implie6mal they must ame3.dy have their own and
(onn as prob/imt.9 that$tand sU'Ucrur:aIly ouWde achieved empirical
'feeding' and evenconditioning knowkdge. 'A proposition com:eived
as a response is always apart.i
