II.
The turn from 19th century hydraulic, “linear,” propulsive-impulsive, dramaturgical, ‘protagonistic’ (i.e. heroic) depth psychology, is a “turning into” the unframeable frame: so the move is surely post-Jungian, it develops a new order, is meta-psychological, resolves to living dynamic valences, allows a creative (sometimes dialectic,) interplay of psychological knowledge.
In this last sense, the interplay is something creative betwixt reduction and expansion. There is no way out of the cave except to leave its concerns. In doing this, it is my sense, that we step out into the light of knowing much much less, of even knowing hardly anything at all; this is to step into the mysteries of the question.
Conceptually, my own position triangulates Jamesian* empiricism, (what is to me ‘throughness,’ although radical empiricism is more commonly sensible a term;) phenomenology, and, the constructive-poetical. It’s unseen ‘fourth’ is learning from creative experience, which is to say synchronies and synchronicities may erupt from their mysterium to change the ‘state’ of awareness.
