My Personal Experience of Edinger’s Psychic Life Cycle

In Ego and Archetype, Edinger writes about the “Psychic Life Cycle,” a process in which an individual falls from the ideal condition of self-awareness and humility to an inflated estimation of himself, his ego, and his own importance. This is often triggered by what Edinger terms a “heroic act,” an accomplishment that while worthy in itself, has the unfortunate side effect of giving the person an unrealistically rosy view of himself. Ideally, this process is circular, as humility and repentance serve to return the person to his former ideal state.

In my own experience, I have suffered from “active inflation,” which per Edinger, begins the cycle (40-42). It is a part of human nature to be proud of one’s accomplishments, especially when those accomplishments elevate one’s temporal standing in society. However, this elevation is illusory, which is why Edinger terms it “inflation.” The only thing that matters is our relationship with God and our Christian principles. If we pay any real attention to earthly accomplishments, other than those which enhance our and others’ spirituality, we lose sight of the reason we were given this life in the first place: to refine and perfect our souls so that we may become one with the one we call God. Nothing else really matters. However, I have lost sight of that on many occasions, including one that stands out particularly because I managed to complete the cycle.

I had been working for a major bank for about a year when I received a significant promotion to a position of major responsibility. I was told that I would normally have had to wait another year at least before attaining such a position, but I had shown exceptional ability. I was naturally flattered, and at least at first, dove into my new job with a will. The job was, in fact, well within my capabilities, and I performed it well. However, a problem developed: my relationships with my co-workers measurably deteriorated. At first, I attributed this to their resentment at my having been promoted when they had not. In making this convenient assessment, I ignored the fact that many if not most of them wouldn’t have wanted my new position anyway. The truth was that I had become a jerk.

I treated my fellow employees with condescension since they were obviously not as capable as I was. Although my promotion hadn’t conferred any authority on me, I nonetheless started to treat my fellow workers as underlings rather than colleagues. I didn’t see this disconnect, or rather, saw it but ignored it. It became less and less enjoyable for me to come to work every day; I felt isolated and unhappy. I was eventually lucky enough, though I didn’t consider it so at the time, to overhear a snippet of conversation one day: “He’s become a real asshole since he got that promotion.” I realized, based on a further remark I overheard, that the speaker was referring to me, and worse, her listener was agreeing with her assessment wholeheartedly.

At this point, I had reached the “Alienation” phase (Edinger 41) and was on my way to the bottom. I did, however, rebound, thanks to the rather brutal awakening I received that day. I completed the cycle by accepting the error of my prior self-assessment and becoming realistic once again. I apologized to my co-workers for my behavior and was able to gradually rebuild the relationships I had so badly damaged.

While my epiphany would seem to have been prosaic, in a prosaic situation, reflection on that event turns me toward Rudolph Otto’s concept of the “numinous” (Brooklyn College, “Otto on the Numinous” ). Otto’s term referred to a state, or at least a moment, of what the Romantic poets called “sublimity”: a heightened awareness of oneself, of the surrounding world, of what makes things tick. Self-awareness, being rare, is indeed a numinous and sublime state, and I did achieve it that day.

It is interesting to speculate on what Edinger would think of Otto’s concept. The difference I see between the two’s approaches is that Edinger is more of a nuts-and-bolts guy, while Otto refers to exalted states of being and understanding, Indeed, he says that some things simply can’t be understood. Edinger wants to take apart human error and see what makes it tick. I think that he would have a fundamental problem with Otto, whose “non-rational” view of God implied that God cannot be fully known to Man. Edinger would say, I think, that Man, made in God’s image by God, has a fundamental ability to achieve an understanding of Him.

Ultimately, though, I think Edinger and Otto would agree on this: that spirituality deals with those areas where the temporal and the divine intersect. There is that which we do know and that which we cannot know, but the boundary between those areas is fluid. While Otto might argue that some aspects of the “numinous” are outside human understanding, he would probably agree that they aren’t outside potential human understanding. Edinger, while he might place the boundary of what is knowable a bit further out, as it were, than Otto would, would likely agree that some knowledge is in the realm of the numinous. Thus, they would probably agree on the premise that there is a divide between divine and human knowledge; they would disagree on where and how wide that divide is.

Works Cited

“Otto on the Numinous.” Academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu. Brooklyn College.

Edinger, Edward. Ego and Archetype: Individuation and the Religious Function of the Psyche. Boston, MA: Shambhala, 1992.