Fantasy Thinking

We have, therefore, two kinds of thinking: directed thinking, and dreaming or fantasy-thinking. The former operates with speech elements for the purpose of communication, and is difficult and exhausting; the latter is effortless, working as it were spontaneously, with the contents ready to hand, and guided by unconscious motives.

Jung establishes the foundational binary between directed thinking and fantasy thinking, defining the latter as effortless, spontaneous, and governed by unconscious rather than adaptive aims.

Jung, Carl Gustav, Symbols of Transformation, 1952thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Fantasy thinking was considered immature, like what children do when playing with their toys. It is generally considered to be inferior compared to the directed thinking adults employ in their work and daily life. Jung, however, reflected further on the meaning embedded in fantasies and studied them from a deeper psychological perspective, which he would later call archetypal.

Tozzi traces Jung’s intellectual movement from dismissing fantasy thinking as infantile to recognising its archetypal depth, summarising the conceptual rehabilitation at stake in Symbols of Transformation.

Tozzi, Chiara, Active Imagination in Theory, Practice and Training, 2017thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

we possess, side by side with our newly acquired directed and adapted thinking, a fantasy-thinking which corresponds to the antique state of mind. Just as our bodies still retain vestiges of obsolete functions and conditions in many of their organs, so our minds, which have apparently outgrown those archaic impulses, still bear the marks of the evolutionary stages we have traversed, and re-echo the dim bygone in dreams and fantasies.

Jung situates fantasy thinking as a phylogenetically archaic stratum of mind that coexists permanently with rational adaptation, likened to vestigial bodily organs.

Jung, Carl Gustav, Symbols of Transformation, 1952thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

this Imaginatio must not be confused with fantasy. As Paracelsus already observed, fantasy, unlike Imagination, is an exercise of thought without foundation in nature, it is the ‘madman’s cornerstone.’

Corbin, drawing on Paracelsus, issues a decisive warning against equating creative Imagination with fantasy, classifying the latter as groundless mental activity that corrupts the genuine imaginal function.

Corbin, Henry, Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn Arabi, 1969thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

this Imaginatio must not be confused with fantasy. As Paracelsus already observed, fantasy, unlike Imagination, is an exercise of thought without foundation in nature, it is the ‘madman’s cornerstone.’ This warning is essential.

Corbin reiterates from a Sufi-philosophical vantage the categorical distinction between true creative Imagination and mere fantasy, anchoring the warning in Paracelsian authority.

Corbin, Henry, Alone with the Alone: Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn Arabi, 1969thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Fantasy leads straight into action only when there is not enough space between idea and impulse, when the inner realm is so cramped that nothing can be contained for long… If fantasy is to be restrained by reference to its relation to the outer world, to criteria of ‘reality-testing’ about what can be realized in direct action, then it loses the name and nature of fantasy altogether.

Hillman argues that fantasy possesses its own autonomous interiority wholly distinct from action and reality-testing, and loses its proper nature when subordinated to pragmatic criteria.

Hillman, James, Insearch: Psychology and Religion, 1967supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

By fantasy I understand two different things: 1. a fantasm, and 2. imaginative activity… a complex of ideas that is distinguished from other such complexes by the fact that it has no objective referent… merely the output of creative psychic activity, a manifestation or product of a combination of energized psychic elements.

Jung provides his formal definitional distinction within Psychological Types, separating fantasm as product from imaginative activity as process, both united by lack of objective referent.

Jung, Carl Gustav, Psychological Types, 1921supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

In fantasy, ‘a dog is a dog is a dog.’ Fantasy has ‘no poetic value,’ whereas a true dream has poetry in it, i.e., layer upon layer of meaning related to past, present, and future, and to inner and outer reality. Fantasy, therefore, has no meaning. It cannot be interpreted.

Kalsched introduces Winnicott’s critical distinction between dissociative fantasying — which is literal, uninterpretable, and possessive — and the symbolically layered meaning of genuine dreaming.

Kalsched, Donald, The Inner World of Trauma: Archetypal Defences of the Personal Spirit, 1996supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Fantasy consists of the images and stories we have within us as we go about our daily affairs… the fantasy is the image, conscious or unconscious, lying beneath the behavior or permeating the action; and it is the fantasy that truly tells the expectations one has or explains the satisfactions or frustrations one feels.

Moore, following Hillman, redefines fantasy as the pervasive imaginal substrate underlying all enacted behaviour rather than an escape from reality, relocating it at the heart of soulful experience.

Moore, Thomas, The Planets Within: The Astrological Psychology of Marsilio Ficino, 1982supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Fantasy consists of the images and stories we have within us as we go about our daily affairs… it is the fantasy that truly tells the expectations one has or explains the satisfactions or frustrations one feels in the performance of an action.

Moore reaffirms that fantasy, as unconscious or conscious image governing action, constitutes the depth-dimension of lived experience and belongs to the soul’s mode of world-inhabitation.

Moore, Thomas, The Planets Within: The Astrological Psychology of Marsilio Ficino, 1990supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

A fantasy becomes a (subjective, depotentiated) fantasy because it implicitly, through the form of its genre, says, ‘don’t take me literally, I am only a product of the poetic imagination… whether or not the things and events I am talking about also actually exist… is of absolutely no concern for me.’

Giegerich identifies the intrinsic duplicity of the imaginal or fantasy mode, which simultaneously presents and withdraws its claim to literal reality, distinguishing it logically from philosophy and science.

Giegerich, Wolfgang, The Soul’s Logical Life Towards a Rigorous Notion of, 2020supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Fantasy (or soul, in my terms) is a wondrous quality in daily life. ‘The power of fantasy penetrates into every corner of the universe, but not into the forces that govern it… novels of this type have an improvised air.’

Hillman, citing Forster, aligns fantasy with soul as a pervasive but ungoverning quality of lived experience — improvisational, penetrating, and distinct from prophetic or spiritual thinking.

Hillman, James, Senex & Puer, 2015supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

It is therefore not such a great step to the view that myths are dreamlike structures… myths, for example, are distorted vestiges of the wish-phantasies of whole nations — the age-long dreams of young humanity.

Jung extends the logic of fantasy thinking to the collective level, linking mythological production to the same archaic dreaming mode that characterises individual fantasy, drawing on Freud’s formulation.

Jung, Carl Gustav, Symbols of Transformation, 1952supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

By taking the soul’s sickness fantasy at face value as clinical pathology, the clinical approach creates what it then must treat… We then would have the drug fantasy, the diet fantasy, the surgical fantasy… These would be psychological modes of imagining about pathologizing.

Hillman extends the concept of fantasy to encompass therapeutic frameworks themselves, arguing that clinical modalities are imaginative constructions rather than neutral empirical procedures.

Hillman, James, Re-Visioning Psychology, 1975aside

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

God can be seen most basically with the help of fantasy, which is the sense of the senses, the most general sense organ. It is also the primary body of the soul. But it lives covertly and exercises its rule over the creature as if from a fortress.

In a Paracelsian passage discussed in Jung’s seminars, fantasy is elevated to the rank of universal sensory organ and primary body of the soul, capable of perceiving the divine.

Jung, C.G., Dream Interpretation Ancient and Modern: Notes from the Seminar Given in 1936-1941, 2014aside

Dig deeper with Sebastian →