Archetypal Psychology and Dreamwork
Richard Catlett Wilkerson
[All footnotes without an author refer to James Hillman.]
Welcome to the topsy-turvey world of Archetypal Psychology! At first the ride
through this post-Jungian school of thought may feel like you are in a Fellini
film or playing a game of Shoots and Ladders, but eventually the seriousness by
which they take the imagination and the depth they give to the dream and other
images is perhaps better characterized by a Bergman film, full of pregnant
pauses and unexpected glances that bring our attention to the overtones and
undertones of the moment and lead us deeper into the image.
Archetypal psychology separated itself as a distinct school from Jungian
psychology in the early 1970’s. As its founder and most prolific writer, James
Hillman, says of archetypal psychology, it is an attempt to “connect to the
wider culture of Western Imagination beyond the consulting room” (Archetypal
Psychology, 1) That is, archetypal psychology has roots in personal analysis,
but extends its applications to art, architecture, literature and other cultural
products. The archetype, so crucial to Jungian psychology, is released from
being an archetype ~in~ us and seen more as an adjective than a noun, an
encounter that finds its expression in all aspects of life. It is recognized as
being prior and more fundamental to life than any individual psyche.
Archetypes, seen in Jungian psychology as the structures that underpin the
psyche, take on another role in Archetypal psychology where they are seen as “structures in
process” (Re-Visioning Psychology, 148).
The term ‘archetypes’ typically refers to psychological patterns that appear
thought human experience and can be seen in the motifs of age-old myths,
legends, and fairy tales found in every culture through the history of the human
species. Archetypes, the symbolic forms of the unconscious, can also be seen in
the imagery of the dream. Examples of archetypes are “the wise old man/woman”
‘the tree of life,’ ’the journey,’ and ’home.’ ”( Aizenstat,1995, 95)
But in archetypal psychology this definition is expanded beyond one’s
personal relationship with these structuring powers to include the non-personal imaginal realm. “Our broader view of Depth Psychology includes the psychic
realities of all phenomena, emphasizing the part of the Depth Psychology
tradition that honors psyche in the world. “ (Aizenstat , 1995, 95)
When we talk about the appearance of archetypes as people in dreams or in
imaginative spaces, then the ~persons~ of archetypes emerge, the phantasmagoria,
the mythical figures, the daimones, and gods. When discussed in terms of
symptoms and affect, they are discussed as the styles of suffering (paranoid,
borderline, phobic). When discussed as ideas, they express the intellectual
psyche. That is, they express themselves as ideas important to soul. “ A God is
a manner of existence, an attitude toward existence, and a set of ideas.”
(Re-Visioning, 103) Each perspective comes with a whole pantheon of deities,
sub-deities, nymphs, wrights, angels, demons, symbols, landscapes, plants,
activities and modes of behavior. This is perhaps a clumsy way to refer to what
happens, but to date is also the most elegant. When your daughter falls in love
with a guy who is a disaster, it becomes clear that the whole pantheon of the god of love has
become activated, along with all that this entails. The ability of these powers
to possess and direct our behavior, to cause us suffering, but also to give us
meaning, would be inadequately expressed as anything less than the possession by
a god. We rarely have ideas of importance, they have us.
What really makes archetypal psychology different than Jungian analysis of
individuals and culture? There are many levels to this answer, some of which are
quite complex, but basically there is a shift in the attitude of the psyche
being in us to us being in the psyche. Some would argue that Jung made this
shift himself (When we are awake we say we had a dream, but when we are dreaming
we know the dream has us). However, the archetypal school draws these elements
out in a particular way that brings into question a wide variety of Jungian
concepts, including the Self, the Heroic ego, representations, symbols and many
Key concepts: soul, archetype, imagination, psyche
Andrew Samuels (Jung and the Post-Jungians, 1985) notes that a survey of the
main tenets of archetypal psychology need to include the primary concept of
archetype, its area of interest as the image, and its vehicle as mythology that
opens instead of grounds and a world view of pluralism and polytheism. However,
it is the re-visioning of the concept of the ~soul~ that directs archetypal
Typically in the West, we encounter the concept of the soul in spiritual
terms, but the archetypal school sees it more in its direction of depth, not the
rising heights of spirit.
Hillman borrows the term “soul-making” from the Romantics. As Keats says in a
letter to his brother “Call the world if you please, ‘The vale of Soul-making,’
Then you will find out the use of the world…” (April 21, 1819 Letter to George
and Georgiana Keats)
“From this perspective,” say Hillman “the human adventure is a wandering through
the vale of the world for the sake of making soul.” (Re-Visioning, ix) Since our
life is already psychological, it behooves us to find the connection between
this psyche/soul and the world, and a place for soul in this world. Just
noticing is not enough, some encountering is needed. “…it is not enough to evoke
soul and sing its praises. The job of psychology is to offer a way and find a
place for soul within its own field. For this we need basic psychological ideas.
“ (Re-Visioning, ix)
But what is the soul? “By soul I mean, first of all, a perspective rather
than a substance, a viewpoint toward things rather than a thing itself.”
(Re-Visioning, x) Wherever there is an encounter, there is a something that
comes between the encounter and me. Soul-making is opening up this middle ground
between. “In another attempt upon the idea of soul I suggested that the word
refers to that unknown component which makes meaning possible, turns events into
experience, is communicated in love, and has a religious concern.”
Three modes of soul then emerge:
1. Soul as the deepening of events into experience.
2. The soul has a relation with death, and hence love and spirituality.
3. The imaginative possibility of our nature. Reflective speculation, dream,
imagery and fantasy. Imagination, depth, symbolic, metaphorical realm.
“Image is psyche” said Carl Jung (Re-Visioning, 23) and this is a strange
thing to hear at first. Usually we think of our psyche as a receptacle full of images at
times, cleared at other times. But here, psyche ~is~ image. There is no
consciousness that is not already and first an image, a perspective. We can’t
bracket out our fantasies, because the whole notion of bracketing out is itself
Jung says that by image we “do not mean the psychic reflection of an external
object, but a concept derived from poetic usage, names a figure of fancy or
fantasy image” CW6 743 (From Berry, 1982, 57)
This places the image in a middle zone between, with matter/concrete below it
and spirit/abstract/ideal above it. Its no wonder the Greeks call the butterfly
“Psyche” as it hovers between heaven and earth. As Casey notes, this middle
zone, call it psyche, imaginal or soul, also connects the ideal with the
material. It is the imaginal that grounds spirit and the imaginal that lifts it
into the abstract. (Casey, 1991).
In archetypal psychology, the image is primary. The image doesn’t (primarily)
represent something else. Thus dream images, as with all images, are not
symbols, are not analogies, are not signs, are representations. The image is
therefore not just visual, though it may at times take on visuals. Rather it is
image in the sense that I might say “Let me give you an image of what happened
last night at dinner.” It is a sensibility rather than a sense, and it has a
degree of autonomy from my psyche.
If these imaginal beings are not in my psyche, where are they? Scholar Henry
Corbin contributes a concept from Islamic mysticism, the mundus imaginalis,
which is an imaginal realm between the subjective and objective. This realm is
filled with imaginal beings, who may take the shape of our own complexes in our
dreams. We see, for example, our mother in our dream, but its not our literal
mother. Rather it is an imaginal being that has taken on the look and act of our
personal mother, attracted, we might say, by our mother complex. (Corbin, 1969)
Corbin’s placing of archetypal realities in the middle zone of reality
reveals the archetype as accessible to imagination first. First when it presents
itself as image and so the whole procedure of archetypal psychology becomes
imaginative, its tools rhetorical and poetic, its reasoning beyond logic and it
goal other than social adaptation or traditional mental health. In terms of
therapeutic work, the goal is to restore the person to imaginal realities long
since repressed by the culture. That is, the aim is the development of a sense
of soul as the middle ground of reality, and the method of therapy is the
cultivation of imagination. (Archetypal Psychology)
This imaginal realm plays itself out in culture as well as our dreams. We can
see the state of our souls in the buildings and architecture of our cities, in
the parks and choices of cars, in the way we inhabit and decorate our houses.
(City as Dwelling, 1980) “Inner” is a way of seeing these events more than
something literally inside us or them. The depth that we bring to an event has
more to do with the way we encounter it than something inherent held inside. To
the degree that the world is just a means to some other end, it will seem
sterile and mechanical. To the degree “ we give it meaning, it will reveal to us
its significance”. (Avens, 1984). Soul, the deepening of events into
And so things get turned around in archetypal psychology. Reality is seen as
various perspectives, or in other words , as so much imagination. Imagination
takes on a new status of existing, and becomes reality. All our ways of seeing
are imaginal, even our attempts to see without and beyond imagination. (Avens ,
1980). It is a psychology that starts on the notion of a poetic basis of mind
rather than the brain, language, developmental theory, social organization or
behaviorism. Rather it starts with imagination.
Hillman traces the ancestral line of archetypal psychology leading back from
Carl Jung “through Freud, Dilthly, Coleridge, Schelling, Vico, Ficino, Plotinus,
and Plato to Heraclitus—and with even more branches which have yet to be traced.
Heraclitus lies near the roots of this ancestral tree of thought, since he was
the earliest to take psyche as his archetypal first principle, to imagine soul
in terms of flux and to speak of its depth without measure.” (Re-Visioning, xi)
From Heraclitus “You could not discover the limits of the soul (psyche) ,
even if you traveled every road to do so; such is the depth (bathum) of its
meaning (logos)” (Revisioning xi)
Like soul, the word ‘archetype’ is also difficult to define. Archetype
becomes more of a metaphor than a thing. Envisioning the basic structure of the
soul in an archetypal way shifts all discussion of it and all basic questions of
psychology to the realm of the imagination. Hillman maintains, with Jung, that
archetypes are the deepest patterns of the psychic functioning. They govern our
perspectives, our genres in literature, our symptoms in psychopathology, our
rituals and relations in anthropology. But more important for archetypal
psychology is not the abstract structuring qualities of the archetype, but their
“emotionally possessive effect”, the way they take over consciousness and
bewitch it. Note for example the daughter in who falls in love with a man who
will ruin her, but is totally blind to this though everyone else can see it. Or
the boss who has gained power and become taken over with power and can no longer
hear anyone else and has become blind to all who work below her/him. Or the
person driven to suicide, finding no other path, though if convinced by others
to wait a day, finds his whole mood changed.
And so, we see the archetype first in behavior (possession) we can see the
archetype in images (dreams, myths) and finally in a style of consciousness or
attitude, as in the heroic style of consciousness of independence, strength,
conquest and single-mindedness.
One almost always hears archetypal psychologists speak in terms or archetypal
rather than archetype. This emphasizes both the intensity of the encounter as
well as the plurality. That is, that archetypes are not singled out for study,
but impact us in multifaceted ways, and do so in a manner that overwhelms the
What does this all mean for dreamwork? At first, it may seem unclear. One
famous dreamworker who reviewed Hillman’s Dreams and the Underworld said of the
book “the book talks about why we shouldn’t do dreamwork, then gives examples of
how to do it.”
And yet the process is really quite simple. Stick with the image. Instead of
elaborating, associating, interpreting, second guessing, finding links to your
life, just stick with the image. Just like meeting something or someone you have
never met before, though they may be wearing the clothes and face of those
familiar to you. And just like a friend, we don’t get to know them more deeply
by interpreting them, but by grasping them as a whole image, a whole being.
When the images are intolerable, this simple rule of sticking with the image
is more difficult. Even friendly images can be difficult to stick with. Thus
some theoretical background and context to the work as a whole may be helpful in
teaching us what to do and not do with our nocturnal guests.
As previously discussed, in archetypal psychology the human is not the only
being with a soul, and the soul we have is multiple. That is, there are other
things than our ego, our subject in the subject/object split, that are allowed
to be ensouled. This doesn’t mean that every object is now seen as being alive
and having an independent consciousness. This would be what is called a
spiritualist fallacy, applying the project of soul in an abstract manner of
grids over all of reality. Instead, the rock may or may not be currently
inhabited. The building’s soul may be revealing itself one moment and not the
next. And people with egos may act quite soulless. We find out though giving the
other meaning, and waiting to see if it reveals its significance. We wait, we
listen, we make time and room for otherness.
At first this seems completely contrary to modern therapy and the notion of
re-owning one’s projections. Typically the path of contemporary ego integration
is for the client to bring all these imaginations that are out there on others
into one’s consciousness and be responsible for these creations. We see this in
the Gestalt dreamwork of looking at every piece of the dream as oneself, as well
as the dreamwork where every piece of the dream brings with it a message or
presentation that is related to our ego’s future self development.
Rather personifying is taken by archetypal psychology to be “the spontaneous
experiencing, envisioning and speaking of the configurations of existence as
psychic presences” (Re-Visioning, 12)
Some ways we may error in approaching an image.
1. Allegory. Allegory tends to provide a “lesson” and the personification of
gods and goddesses become simply illustrations of a principle. “Ah, yes, this
flower in the dream is the allegory of the rose and means thus and such.” Or
worse, it picks up the positive side of an image or principle or myth and shoves
off the pathological side, which may be the part of the image that hold the
depth. “Allegory,” write Hillman “is a defensive reaction of the rational mind
against the full power of the soul’s irrational personifying propensity”
2. Using words as signifieds. Just as one can impose a pre-existing theory on a
dream, one can also toss word-meanings at the image. Consider that there are two
approaches to the use of words, signifying and evoking. In the first, the word
is a sign, which we have learned points to a particular concept. Couch, tree,
cow. In modern language we have operationally defined concepts of reason and we
have words of belief. Between these two there isn’t much room to maneuver, and
yet, this space in-between is exactly the place of soul and imagination. Words
in the between realm don’t signify something other than themselves, but evoke
and themselves become part of the event. This is also the realm of poetry. We
can never tell beforehand if the evoked will appear. It doesn’t signify a stable
3. Personification vs. personifying. The attribution of personified objects
outside the person has survived the death of God in contemporary society in the
forms of pathology and anthropology. We either talk about people falsely
attributing human characteristics to objects (anthropomorphizing) or we talk
about primitive people and animism, the attribution of living souls to inanimate
objects. To avoid this name-calling which assumes we take something inside and
project it outside, archetypal psychology uses the word personifying, which
assumes the existence of souls ~prior~ to our reflecting upon them.
What’s the point of all this poetic soul-making and personifying? Hillman
reminds us that the Greeks and Romans used to have psychic powers that they
worshiped, Insolence, Night, Ugliness, Timing, Hope, Mercy, Forgetfulness… and
when neglected, people fell sick, which is also what Jung never tired of saying.
The point, Hillman points out, is not to start up a new series of cults, but to
see this activity as cultural personifying. Finding these images in our hearts
and dreams and culture returns abstract thoughts and dead matter to human
This leads us to a mythopoetic world view. In this view, myths are not
stories but personifications that draw one into contact with depth. The mythic
consciousness is able to engage a world that is animated with soul. “where
imagination reigns, personifying happens.” (Re-Visoning, 17) or as Jung put it
“Image is psyche, the psyche consists essentially of images… a picturing of
vital activates” (CW 13 #58)
One of the consequences of this view is that we too, are imaginal being.
Naming with images and metaphors has an advantage over naming with concepts,
for personified namings never mere dead tools. (Re-Visioning, 32)
Hillman notes that personifying, whether it is done pathologically or
intentionally, functions to “save the diversity and autonomy of the psyche from
domination by any single power, whether this domination be by a figure of
archetypal awe in one’s surroundings or by one’s own egomania. ‘ (Re-Visioning,
In some dreams, the various styles of presence are mirrored in a scene.
“these styles are embodied in persons who are embroiled with each other. “
These personalities at night “ infuse themselves into the attitudes that
dominate our daily lives. “ (Re-Visioning, 32-33)
Dreams, then, for archetypal psychology hold a special place as they can
present an encounter that the waking ego may be unable to access with all its
waking defenses intact (in waking, they can still overwhelm us, but we call them
“symptoms.”) That is, while dreaming we are aware of our status as one of many
autonomous, imaginal beings.
Thus archetypal psychology allows the image to work on us. There may not even
be a conclusion or goal. Imagination doesn’t have to achieve or commit to
create. In fact, it works better through falling apart, coming to pieces,
separating rather than unifying, diversifying rather than integrating,
multiplying instead of hierarchical-izing.
In dreamwork, this requires moving towards and staying with the intolerable,
(Aizenstat, 2003) , the unusual, the alien. The images “must be alien even while
familiar, strangers even if lovers, uncanny although we rely on them.”
The myth of Eros and Psyche is taken seriously. It is through love one can
see the person in the imaginary and the imaginal layer that pervades all we see.
“every symptom or habit, fining place for it within the heart of imagination,
finding mythical person who is its supportive ground.” (Re-Visioning, 44)
Why on earth would pathologizing be of use to archetypal psychology, or
anyone for that matter? To find that part of psyche which is most hidden and
alien to ego consciousness, there is no better place than in the sick,
suffering, abnormal and fantastic symptoms. What Hillman means by the term is
”the psyche’s autonomous ability to create illness, morbidity, disorder,
abnormality, and suffering in any aspect of the its behavior and to experience
and imagine life through this deformed and afflicted perspective. “
(Re-Visioning, 57) Through the pathologizing activities of the soul, archetypal
psychology develops a psychological necessity. Once this necessity if found,
then pathologizing isn’t right or wrong, but more finds its place in the whole
as necessary. That is, we begin to learn how it is speaking and what it is
saying. Part of this is seeing the pathological as primary and inherent in all
psychic events rather than speaking of “abnormal psychology” which splits the
psyche into artificial parts, health and illness, sin and redemption.
There are three ways that we often avoid allowing space for the pathological
The first is by careful naming and labeling, as mentioned above. This
accurate sketch of symptoms, their onset, their course, the expected outcome,
all expose a secret power dynamic to make them sensible and deny their irascible
The second way of avoiding the psyche’s true pathology is by shifting the
insanity from the individual to the society, but in the end maintains the
division. The importance of phenomenological/existential schools in exposing the
insanity of culture and offering us authentic choices and alternatives is surely
to be acknowledged, but as a full view of psyche they just becomes one-sided and
The third way to avoid pathology is with sugary humanism, which tries to stay
above it all, focusing on the higher virtues of mankind, its health, hope,
self-transcendent warmth and love and courage. But by turning away from the
psyche’s pathologizing, they turn away from its full richness and depth.
As a larger picture, we can look at the Neo-platonic model to see how there
is often a struggle and confusion between spirit and soul mentioned above in the
placement of psyche/soul ~between~ spirit and concrete matter. However, in our
culture both are often folded into spirit and spirit dominates in the realm of
the abstract and ideal. That is, we turn psychopathology into a material thing
to be cured by medicine or a spiritual thing to be worshiped or ennobled. When
does it get its own realm?
How does one go with pathology then? Hillman suggests we expand Jung’s phrase
“dreaming the dream onward” to include “pathologizing the myth onward.” This
means trying to find a way to stick with the mess. This means finding imaginal
methods and allowing the madness to teach us the method. “We do not decrease
their value by considering them as signs of medical sickness or inflate their
value by considering them as signs of spiritual suffering. They are ways of the
psyche and ways of finding soul.” (Re-Visioning, 75)
In dreamwork, for example, the way to stay with an image is first to not set
its value in terms of literal nature. So often the twisted, turned, bent and out
of shape scenes are seen as problems while idyllic scenes are taken as sign of
our equilibrium and health. The more nature the more positive, the more
distorted, the more negative. “By employing the dream as model of psychic
actuality, and by conceiving a theory of personality based upon the dream, we
are imagining the psyche’s basic structure to be an inscape of personified
images. The full consequences of this structure imply that the psyche presents
its own imaginal dimensions, operates freely without words, and is constituted
of multiple personalities.” (Re-Visioning, 33)
Psychologizing or Seeing Through
Psychologizing is seen as the soul’s root and native activity. The first
activity is reflection. This is not a passive reflection, but seeing reflection
in all activity and behavior. Though not all ideas are necessarily worthy of
soul making, Hillman writes “By psychological ideas, I mean those that engender
the soul’s reflection upon its nature, structure, and purpose. “ (Re-Visioning,
117) As a general guide, the process is one of de-literalizing, of moving into
the metaphorical, of gathering up the overtones and after tones that get cut off
when we speak literally.
It may be easier to talk about these ideas as archetypes, the soul’s relation
with death, with body, the world, other souls, love, beauty, sickness, family,
ancestors, power, history, time. It is there relationship to psyche that makes
them archetypal and keeps them connected with soul. The souls that can’t find
and generate ideas become lost, hollow, lacking in imagination. What a radical
idea it would be to see a dream a day as its own idea, its own new world
perspective, its own school of philosophy. The psyche expresses itself in these
ideas. In this sense, psychologizing means seeing through the view presented by
the psyche, putting on its eyes and looking through its eyes, as well as seeing
from what archetypal fantasy this view is coming from. This turning of ideas
back upon themselves is a way we come to know the frames of our consciousness
and the prisons of our mind.
“Through psychologizing I change the idea of any literal action at
all—political, scientific, personal—into a metaphorical enactment…. I recognize
that though my ideas I apprehend and am apprehended by my inmost subjectivity,
entering all actions in the role of an idea” (Re-Visioning, 127)
In other words, by placing the scene we are in within the stage of
psychological powers (perspectives, gods, archetypes) we create a space for the
introduction or re-introduction of the imaginal. When this task is neglected,
there is no less fantasy, but the fantasy is dominated by single views. If I am
at a board of directors meeting and unable to place my position within a larger
imaginal field, I am likely to be caught up in the egoic dramas, the continual
power plays, the continual need to be heard. Allowing for a more polytheistic
placement, seeing that a wider variety of perspectives and imps and ideas and
demons are at play, the board meeting can open up from its monotheistic bottom
line or need for progress and take on the larger goals of, say for example,
unfolding the complexities of the mission statement of the organization and
recognizing the development of relations that can bring in novelty and
innovation. This will be as true for the board meeting in the waking world as
the board meeting in my dream.
So, in psychologizing, we look for the fantasy that is dominant in a time or
space. There is no specific procedure for this. It may be through an historical
examination of underlying causes, it may be a semiological analysis, it may be a
philosophical debate. It may be through humor or art or love. But again, the
process is one of de-literaling. Some mistakes we make in trying to hear
1. Abstract Liternalness. Theology and metaphysical often take as literal the
most abstract of concepts. In this way they speak about soul, but are really
avoiding soul in talk about redemption, truth, and ideals.
2. Body Liternalness. The body is always concrete, but not literal. The body
engages in a wide variety of tasks which are concrete but not just literal, such
as eating, dancing, copulating, fighting, running.
Steps in seeing-through
a. Psychologizing. What is going on here? What is this moment in my life and as
I bring some reflective time into the moment, what becomes clear? This process
may itself be infinitely deep. Once moment of clarity leading to the next
b. Deus abscounditus: As we begin to acknowledge the full depth of the
encounter, we find ourselves guided by that something which always remains
unknown, a hidden god. “who appears only in concealment” Re-Visioning, 140) and
justifies the whole process.
c. Narration: as we elaborate the phenomena before us, we make a tale of it,
and in telling this tale what is before us transforms. All explanations can be
considered narratives and placed mythologically.
d. Ideas as tools: The way it all moves is through ideas, and these are then the
eyes of the soul, the way it sees.
In conclusion, what kind of general world-view is archetypal psychology
offering? Stephen Aizenstat suggests that the move if from the Collective
Unconscious to the World Unconscious.. This view includes the psychic reality of
all phenomena as they manifest in the world. “The world unconscious is a deeper
and wider dimension of the psyche than that of the personal or the collective
unconscious. In the realm of the world unconscious, all creatures and things of
the world are understood at interrelated and interconnected” (Aizenstat, 1995,
This view deeply acknowledges the imaginal realm in life and attempts to restore
it value in our culture. The result is an re-animated world of autonomous
beings. But while these beings may not need us, we need them. “Images, like
myth, are necessary for the enchantment of the soul, said Plato. There is
nothing more ultimate than that—enchantment, eternal delight in coming and
going, in ascending and descending on Jacob’s ladder. The Event events,
Imagination imagines. “ (Avens, 1984)
If you are interested in how archetypal psychology might enhance your own
dreamwork, be sure to take the History of Dreams course offered by Richard
Wilkerson at the beginning of each month. The course includes the history of
dreamwork from ancient Thrace to Cyberspace, covering all major schools of
psychology, and many of the peripheral schools and views. The course also
includes dream anthropology, dream science, lucidity, and many other topics and
areas in dreaming, including archetypal psychology.
REFERERNCES AND CITATIONS
Aizenstat, Stephen (2003).DreamTending: Befriending the Archetypal
Imagination. Presentation at the Association for the Study of Dreams
International Conference, Berkeley, CA. June 28th, 2003.
Aizenstat, Stephen (1995). Jungian Psychology and the World Unconscious. In
Ecopsychology: restoring the Earth , Healing the Mind. (Ed Theodore Roszak, et
al) Pp 92-100.
Avens, Robert (1980). Imagination is Reality. Spring Publications ,Inc
Avens, Robert (1984). The New Gnosis. Spring Publications, Inc.:Dallas,TX
Berry, Patricia. Defense and telos in dreams. Spring, 1978, Vol. ?, 115 127.
Berry, Patricia. (1974). An approach to the dream. Spring, pp. 58 79.
Berry, Patricia. (1978). Defense and telos in dreams. Spring, pp. 115 127.
Berry, Patricia. (1992). Beyond Freud and Jung The impact of new ideas about
dreamwork. Quadrant, 25, 89 91.
Berry, Patricia (1974). An approach to the dream. Spring, 58 79.
Berry, Patricia (1978). Defense and telos in dreams. Spring, 115 127 .
Berry, Patricia (1987). Echo's Subtle Body. Dallas, TX: Spring Publications.
Berry Hillman, P. (1985). Some dream motifs accompanying the "abandonment" of
an analytic practice. Chiron: A Review of Jungian Analysis, pp. 87 99.
Casey, Edward (1991). Spirit and Soul. Essays in Philosophical Psychology.
Dallas, TX : Spring Publications.
Casey, Edward (1974). Towards an archetypal imagination. Spring,
Corbin, Henry (1972). Mundus imaginalis, or the imaginary and the imaginal.
Corbin, Henry (1969). Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn ‘Arabi.
(Trans. Ralph Manheim). Bollingen Series XCL. Princeton: Princeton University
Guggenbuhl-Craig (1971) Power in the Helping Professions. Spring
Hillman, James (19 ). The Soul’s Code: In Search of Character and Calling.
Hillman, James (1991). A Blue Fire. HarperPereinnal.
Hillman, James & Roscher, W. H. (1988). Pan and the Nightmare. Dallas: Spring
Hillman, J. (1987). A psychology of transgression drawn from an incest dream.
Spring, pp. 66 76.
Hillman, James (1985). Anima: an Anatomy of a Personified Notion. Dallas:
Hillman, James (1983a). Archetypal Psychology: A Brief Account. Dallas :
Hillman, James (1983b). Healing Fiction. Barrytown NY: Station Hill Press.
Hillman, James (1980). The City As Dwelling: Walking, Sitting, Shaping.
Dallas Institute Publications.
Hillman, James (1979a). Dreams and the Underworld. New York: Harper and Row,
Hillman, James (1979). Image Sense. Spring, 130 143.
Hillman, James (1979). Insearch: Psychology and Religion. Dallas : Spring
Hillman, James (1979) Senex and Puer. In Puer Papers (ed Giles, C.) Dallas :
Hillman, James (1978). Further notes on images. Spring, 152 182.
Hillman, James (1977). An inquiry into image. Spring, pp. 62 88.
Hillman, James (1975a). Lose Ends. Dallas : Spring Publications.
Hillman, James (1975b). Re-Visioning Psycholgy. New York: Harper and Row.
Hillman, James (1973). The dream and the underworld. Eranos, 42 237 319.
Hillman, James (1973). The Great Mother, her son, her hero, and the puer. In
Fathers and Mothers (ed Patricia Berry) Spring Publications: Zurich
Hillman, James (1971). Psychology:monotheistic or polytheistic? Spring
Hillman, James (1972). The Myth of Analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern
Hillman, James (1964 ). Suicide and the Soul. New York: Harper and Row – Also
1976, Dallas: Spring Publications.
Miller, David (1981). The New Polytheism. Dallas, TX: Spring Publications.
Perera, Sylvia Brinton (1990). Dream Design: Some Operations Underling
Dream Appreciation. In Dreams in Analysis (Eds. Nathan Schwarts-Salant and
Murray Stein). Pp 39-79. Willmette, IL: Chiron Publications.
Shelbourne, W. A. (1984). A critique of James Hillman's approach to the
dream. Journal of the Analytical Psychology, 29, 35 56.
Toussulis, Y. (1986) Privately distributed notes. Antioch University West
Perera, Silvia. B. (1990). Dream design: Some operations underlying clinical
dream appreciation. In N. Schwartz Salant & M. Stein (Eds.), Dreams in Analysis
(pp. 39 79). Willmette: Chiron Publications.