Arquetipal psychoanalysis.

Pedro Villanueva's thinking. A new vision post-Lacanian. November 2012 We know that Structuralists scanned reality as a structure and its own language. Let's start with the Real thing, on the basis of the triad lacanain of the Real, the imaginary and the symbolic. The Real thing observes reality as a structure with its own rules of game and their own language. We observe how behaves the biological and social behavior of humans. How to speak, how are expressed, what are their conduct before the reality, how they influence human hormones in daily thought, in which affect humans in the economy at the micro level scale and macro scale. That is the Real thing. The Tangible, palpable, it is happening the here and the now.

The imaginary is what you think how things are, is just about the images that you feel from the outside, and so you start to imagine things that are not real about your personality and others, because we are not radar and always receive much unfinished, incomplete information from reality, others and hence tend to be imaginary. Imaginary, relationships and environment are born the enormous confusions of the human being with his ego. The symbolic cultural laws that we live on a daily basis, but also depart from the imaginary of the human being, since the cultural laws of each place is relative and is not based in reality, or the Real thing. The archetype is the primary force that lies in the collective unconscious and that spread to humans through synchronicity. Here comes into play, the triad Lacanian, participates the archetype. Therefore in the imaginary is divided into two views. I imaginary, what your imagine being, what your imagine as they are people, reality, etc. and the archetypal imagery. The impact that influences the energy of the archetype in your imaginary self. As I wrote in a text about the semiotic sincronistic, in which the synchronicity that transmits the archetypes or archetype is structured as a language through the figures of speech such as metaphors, metonymies, paradoxes, etc. What is clear is not transmitting a logical syntax of language, but to a poetic level as pointed out many times the psychoanalyst Julia Kristeva. The binary relation of the imaginary self and the imaginary archetypal, a relationship is intimate and personal at the semantic level, in that sense and meanings constructed the personality of the individual who develops it. The error of the psychology of Carl Jung and the followers of Jung, is the lack of analysis of the Real thing and its structure, as the study about human biology, sciences such as ethology that studies the behavior of animals and beings human that they investigate how they behave in the reproduction, types of matings, herds and others such as sociobiology and evolutionary biology.

The error of Jacques Lacan was to ignore the collective unconscious and the impact that influences society, the archetypal imagery that has been standing for thousands of years. Therefore the triad Lacanian is unfinished if underestimated factor the imaginary arquetipal. We turn then to the quaternary of Villanueva. 1 - The Real thing 2 - I imagined 3-Imaginary arquetipal 4 - The symbolic What I have found to the Real thing, they are not on the same frequency or in tune with the binary of the imaginary self consciousness and archetypal imagery, because it's a semantic of both and teleological level communication, i.e. pursues a purpose and a meaning, which may be the development of consciousness and its connection in the depths of the collective unconscious It is still a little-known research area. That is separate and almost alone of happening in reality that is an etiological level, as it is the typical behavior of the human animal and its social environment.

About author, more information; http://www.scribd.com/doc/109428292/Centro-de-Pensamiento-PedroVillanueva