From Confusion to Clarity

This paper was prepared for discussion within our Theistic Psychology study group. It explores points of comparison between Carl Jung’s theory of archetypes, Emanuel Swedenborg’s theological psychology, and the integrative work of Dr. Leon James. The goal is not to equate these systems, but to examine where meaningful dialogue may exist between them.

If you’ve researched Jungian archetypes online, you’ve likely encountered the familiar list: the Innocent, the Hero, the Sage, the Rebel, and so on. These 12 archetypes appear everywhere — in personality quizzes, branding guides, and storytelling workshops. However, it is worth understanding that this popular 12-archetype model was not formulated by Carl Jung himself — and that Jung’s actual work opens onto much deeper territory, territory that resonates in striking ways with the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg and the theistic psychology of Dr. Leon James.

What Jung Actually Taught

Carl Jung (1875–1961) developed the concept of archetypes as part of his theory of the collective unconscious — a deep layer of the psyche shared across all humanity, populated by universal patterns that Jung believed are part of humanity’s inherited psychological structure and appear repeatedly across cultures, myths, religions, and dreams.¹ He described archetypes not as a fixed list, but as dynamic, recurring structures that emerge consistently in human experience regardless of time, place, or cultural background.²

Jung himself wrote that there are “as many archetypes as there are typical situations in life” — leaving their number open rather than fixing it to any catalogue.³ Rather than cataloguing them rigidly, he focused on those that appeared most consistently and powerfully in his clinical and scholarly work.

The archetypal figures and structures Jung returned to most often include:

• The Self — the central archetype of wholeness and the organizing principle of the psyche. Jung viewed the Self as the center and totality of the psyche, though he sometimes described it in language that borders on the religious, leading to ongoing debate about whether the Self should be understood psychologically, spiritually, or both. This ambiguity becomes one of the most important points of dialogue with Swedenborg.⁴
• The Ego — the center of conscious identity and awareness⁵
• The Persona — the social “mask” we present to the outer world⁶
• The Shadow — the unconscious repository of repressed, denied, or undeveloped aspects of the personality⁷
• The Anima — the feminine dimension within the male psyche⁸
• The Animus — the masculine dimension within the female psyche⁸
• The Wise Old Man / Wise Woman — the archetype of wisdom, guidance, and spiritual insight⁹
• The Great Mother — representing nurturing, fertility, but also devouring or destructive aspects of nature and the unconscious¹⁰
• The Divine Child — symbolizing innocence, potential, rebirth, and the possibility of transformation¹¹
• The Hero — the archetype of courage, struggle, and the journey toward individuation¹²
• The Trickster — the disruptive, boundary-crossing figure that challenges order and can bring both chaos and unexpected illumination¹³

These are not personality types or marketing categories. They are living symbols that emerge from the depths of the psyche, carrying profound psychological and spiritual significance.

The Later “12 Archetypes” Model

The widely circulated 12-archetype framework was developed primarily by Carol S. Pearson, most notably in her 1986 book The Hero Within and her later work Awakening the Heroes Within (1991).¹⁴ Pearson was genuinely influenced by Jung, and her framework has real value in certain contexts — particularly in personal development, narrative theory, and marketing and branding.

Innocent · Orphan/Everyman · Hero · Caregiver · Explorer · Rebel · Lover · Creator · Jester · Sage · Magician · Ruler

This is a useful and coherent system, but it is important to recognize it for what it is: a practical, derivative framework built on Jungian foundations, not a direct representation of Jung’s own scholarship. For a group engaged in serious theistic inquiry, Jung’s original archetypal framework offers considerably deeper ground.

Emanuel Swedenborg: A Parallel Tradition

What makes Jung’s archetypal theory particularly significant for a theistic psychology group is how deeply it resonates with the work of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) — the Swedish scientist, theologian, and mystic who, over a century before Jung, was mapping the relationship between the inner life of the human being and the spiritual world.

Several of Swedenborg’s foundational teachings invite comparison with Jung’s insights:

The Doctrine of Correspondences

At the heart of Swedenborg’s system is the teaching that every object, force, and event in the natural world corresponds to and reflects a deeper spiritual reality — that light corresponds to truth, darkness to ignorance, warmth to love, and so on.¹⁵ This doctrine allowed Swedenborg to interpret sacred scripture as a symbolic text whose inner meaning could be unlocked through understanding these correspondences.¹⁶ There is a suggestive parallel here to Jung’s understanding of symbols and archetypes as bridges between the conscious and unconscious mind — though whether the two systems are ultimately describing the same thing is a question worth holding openly rather than resolving too quickly.

Ruling Love

Swedenborg taught that each person is ultimately defined by their ruling love — the deepest governing affection of the will, which is inherently moral in character and shapes not only the personality but the person’s spiritual trajectory and eternal destination.¹⁷ Unlike Jung’s archetypes, which describe recurring patterns within human experience, Swedenborg’s ruling love is the moral and spiritual center from which a person’s thoughts, choices, and character all flow.¹⁸

Regeneration

Swedenborg’s central concern is the process of regeneration — the gradual transformation of the personality from self-centered to spiritually oriented, through increasing alignment with Divine love and wisdom.¹⁹ This bears a suggestive resemblance to Jung’s concept of individuation, the lifelong journey toward psychological wholeness,²⁰ though the two processes differ in important ways that are worth examining carefully.

Important Differences Between Jung and Swedenborg

While the parallels between Jung and Swedenborg are genuinely fascinating, it is equally important to keep their significant differences in view:

• Jung approached these questions primarily as a psychologist and careful observer of symbolic experience. He was deliberately agnostic about metaphysical claims, preferring to describe what appeared in the psyche without asserting its ultimate spiritual nature.
• Swedenborg approached them as a theologian describing a Divinely ordered spiritual reality that he believed he had been permitted to witness directly. His framework is explicitly theocentric — rooted in the nature and will of the Lord.²¹
• Jung’s central process is individuation — the integration of conscious and unconscious elements toward a more complete Self.²²
• Swedenborg’s central process is regeneration — the reordering of the will and understanding through the Lord’s work in the soul.²³
• Jung’s organizing principle is the Self — an internal psychological center of wholeness.²⁴
• Swedenborg’s organizing principle is the Lord — an external and Divine source from whom all genuine love and wisdom flow into the human being.²⁵

These differences do not invalidate the comparison, but they remind us that the two systems are not identical, and that bringing them together requires care and discernment.

Dr. Leon James and Theistic Psychology: A Proposed Synthesis

The most systematic modern attempt to bring these two thinkers into dialogue comes from Dr. Leon James, Professor of Psychology at the University of Hawaii, in his extensive series of works under the banner of Theistic Psychology.²⁶

Dr. James proposes that Jung’s psychic world and Swedenborg’s spiritual world can be interpreted as referring to the same underlying mental-spiritual reality — that what Jung was mapping through dreams, symbols, and archetypal figures, and what Swedenborg was describing through his accounts of the spiritual world, may be two explorers approaching the same territory from different vantage points.²⁷ This is a significant and thought-provoking proposal, and one that rewards careful examination rather than quick acceptance or dismissal.

Among the specific parallels Dr. James proposes:

–  That Jung’s concept of symbolism and Swedenborg’s doctrine of correspondences may be understood as describing the same underlying principle — that inner realities express themselves in outer forms.²⁸

–  That Jung’s concept of archetypes and Swedenborg’s concept of ruling love may be understood as describing the same organizing structures of the personality, approached from psychological and theological perspectives respectively.²⁹

–  That the symbolic language of dreams and the symbolic language of sacred scripture may draw from the same underlying spiritual source.³⁰

Dr. James views both Jung’s individuation and Swedenborg’s regeneration as describing the gradual reordering of the inner life — though he grounds this process ultimately in Swedenborg’s theocentric framework, where the source of transformation is Divine influx rather than a purely internal psychological dynamic.³¹

Bringing It Back to What Matters: Regeneration

Whether one begins with Jung’s archetypes, Swedenborg’s correspondences, or Dr. James’s proposed synthesis, the practical question ultimately remains the same: How is the human personality transformed?

Jung called this process individuation. Swedenborg called it regeneration. Dr. James views both as pointing toward the gradual reordering of the inner life through increasing alignment with truth, love, and spiritual reality — though he would insist, following Swedenborg, that this reordering is ultimately the Lord’s work in the soul, not merely the psyche’s own unfolding.³²

For the purposes of theistic psychology, the value of studying archetypes is therefore not merely intellectual. It is to better understand the symbolic, psychological, and spiritual processes through which human beings become more fully human — and more fully receptive to Divine guidance.³³ Are archetypes primarily psychological structures? Are they reflections of deeper spiritual realities? Are Jung’s symbols and Swedenborg’s correspondences describing different aspects of the same territory? These are among the questions that make the dialogue between Jung, Swedenborg, and Theistic Psychology both challenging and worthwhile — and they are questions this group is particularly well positioned to explore.

This paper is offered as a starting point for discussion rather than a statement of conclusions. Members are encouraged to bring their own reading of Swedenborg, their engagement with Dr. James’s works, and their questions to the conversation.

A Note on Where the Discussion May Lead

One of the most generative questions to emerge from this paper is this:

If Jung’s archetypes are not simply equivalent to Swedenborg’s ruling loves — then what concept or concepts in Swedenborg’s writings comes closest to what Jung was describing?

This is not a question with an obvious answer, and that is precisely what makes it so valuable. Some possibilities worth considering:

• Ruling love — the deepest governing affection organizing the whole personality. Dr. James’s primary proposal, and the most direct parallel, but ruling love carries moral and spiritual weight that Jung’s archetypes do not necessarily imply. (Heaven and Hell 479; Arcana Coelestia 3796)
• Correspondences — the universal symbolic language connecting natural and spiritual realities. Possibly closer to Jung’s concept of symbols than to archetypes proper, but deeply relevant to the question of how the psyche communicates through images. (Heaven and Hell 87–89)
• Inherited tendencies — Swedenborg’s teaching that we inherit propensities toward certain evils and patterns of love from our ancestral lineage. This has a suggestive parallel to Jung’s notion of inherited psychological structures, though Swedenborg’s framework is more specifically moral. (Arcana Coelestia 4317; True Christian Religion 521)
• Heavenly societies and the Grand Human — Swedenborg’s vision of the spiritual world organized into vast communities, each representing a particular quality of love and use, all together forming the Grand Human or Maximus Homo. There is something here that resonates with Jung’s collective unconscious as a shared psychic structure transcending individual personalities. (Heaven and Hell 59–86; Arcana Coelestia 2996, 3624–3649)
• The twelve tribes and twelve apostles — Swedenborg’s extensive treatment of these as representing the full range of goods and truths that constitute the complete spiritual person. These function in his system as something like a complete taxonomy of spiritual qualities — which bears a structural resemblance to archetype systems. (Apocalypse Explained 431; Arcana Coelestia 3858, 3926)
• The degrees of the mind — Swedenborg’s teaching that the human mind has natural, spiritual, and celestial degrees, each capable of being opened progressively through regeneration. This has interesting parallels to Jung’s levels of the psyche, though the frameworks differ fundamentally in their grounding. (Divine Love and Wisdom 236–241; Heaven and Hell 33)

It is also worth noting that this question may not have a single answer. Different Jungian archetypes may find their Swedenborgian resonances in different places. The Shadow, for instance, might find its closest parallel in Swedenborg’s treatment of inherited evil and the proprium (Arcana Coelestia 8480). The Self might find its closest parallel not in ruling love but in Swedenborg’s concept of the regenerated person as a vessel of Divine love and wisdom (Divine Love and Wisdom 114). The Anima and Animus might resonate with Swedenborg’s profound treatment of conjugial love and the complementarity of will and understanding (Conjugial Love 32–38; Divine Love and Wisdom 43–45).

That kind of patient, concept-by-concept exploration — rather than a wholesale equation of the two systems — may be the most honest and fruitful work this group can do. And it is work that remains genuinely open.

Endnotes

All Swedenborg works cited in this paper are freely readable online at newchristianbiblestudy.org. Jung’s Collected Works are available for free borrowing at archive.org.

Carl Jung — Collected Works (CW)

Jung’s Collected Works are cited by volume and paragraph number (e.g., CW 9i, ¶88 = Collected Works, Volume 9 Part 1, paragraph 88). Paragraph numbers are consistent across all editions.

1.  Jung, C.G. “Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious.” CW 9i, ¶1–86; and “The Concept of the Collective Unconscious.” CW 9i, ¶88. Princeton University Press, 1968.

2.  Jung, C.G. “Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious.” CW 9i, ¶88-90. Princeton University Press, 1968.

3.  Jung, C.G. CW 9i, ¶48: “There are as many archetypes as there are typical situations in life.” Princeton University Press, 1968.

4.  Jung, C.G. “Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self.” CW 9ii, ¶1–67. Princeton University Press, 1968. The Self as totality of conscious and unconscious is discussed throughout this volume.

5.  Jung, C.G. “The Relations Between the Ego and the Unconscious.” CW 7, ¶202. Princeton University Press, 1966. See also “Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self.” CW 9ii, ¶1–9, for the distinction between ego as center of consciousness and the Self as totality.

6.  Jung, C.G. “The Relations Between the Ego and the Unconscious.” CW 7, ¶245. Princeton University Press, 1966. For the concise formulation, see also “Concerning Rebirth.” CW 9i, ¶221 (“the persona is that which in reality one is not, but which oneself as well as others think one is”).

7.  Jung, C.G. CW 9ii, ¶13–19; CW 9i, ¶422–423. The shadow as the inferior, repressed dimension of personality.

8.  Jung, C.G. “Concerning the Archetypes, with Special Reference to the Anima Concept.” CW 9i, ¶54–72. Princeton University Press, 1968.

9.  Jung, C.G. “The Phenomenology of the Spirit in Fairytales.” CW 9i, ¶207–254. The Wise Old Man as archetypal figure of meaning and spirit.

10.  Jung, C.G. “Psychological Aspects of the Mother Archetype.” CW 9i, ¶75–110. Princeton University Press, 1968.

11.  Jung, C.G. “The Psychology of the Child Archetype.” CW 9i, ¶151–181. Princeton University Press, 1968.

12.  Jung, C.G. CW 9i, ¶271–274; see also “Conscious, Unconscious, and Individuation,” CW 9i, ¶275–289.

13.  Jung, C.G. “On the Psychology of the Trickster-Figure.” CW 9i, ¶456–488. The Trickster as “a collective shadow figure” is discussed at ¶484.

14.  Pearson, Carol S. “The Hero Within: Six Archetypes We Live By.” HarperOne, 1986. “Awakening the Heroes Within: Twelve Archetypes to Help Us Find Ourselves and Transform Our World.” HarperOne, 1991.

Emanuel Swedenborg — The Writings

Swedenborg’s works are cited by standard section number, consistent across all editions and translations.

15.  Swedenborg, Emanuel. “Heaven and Hell” (¶87–89). The foundational statement of the doctrine of correspondences. See also “Divine Love and Wisdom” (¶374–384).

16.  Swedenborg, Emanuel. “The Doctrine of the New Jerusalem Regarding the Sacred Scripture” (¶1–6). On the multiple senses of scripture and the inner meaning accessible through correspondences.

17.  Swedenborg, Emanuel. “Heaven and Hell” (¶479). On ruling love as the organizing center of personality determining one’s eternal state. See also “New Jerusalem and Its Heavenly Doctrine” (¶54–64), for Swedenborg’s treatment of love in general as the foundation from which ruling love is understood.

18.  Swedenborg, Emanuel. “Arcana Coelestia” (¶3796). On the ruling love as the source from which all a person’s thoughts and affections flow.

19.  Swedenborg, Emanuel. “True Christian Religion” (¶571–625). The extended treatment of regeneration as the central process of spiritual life.

20.  Jung, C.G. “Conscious, Unconscious, and Individuation.” CW 9i, ¶275–289. On individuation as the process of becoming a psychological “individual” — a separate, indivisible unity or whole.

21.  Swedenborg, Emanuel. “Divine Love and Wisdom” (¶4–6; ¶9). The Lord as the sole source of love and wisdom, and the human being as a receiver of that influx.

22.  Jung, C.G. CW 7, ¶186–201. Individuation as the psychological process of differentiating and integrating the personality toward wholeness.

23.  Swedenborg, Emanuel. “True Christian Religion” (¶571–572). On regeneration as the reordering of will and understanding through repentance, reformation, and the Lord’s influx.

24.  Jung, C.G. CW 9ii, ¶1–9. The Self as the totality of the psyche, the center and circumference of conscious and unconscious together.

25.  Swedenborg, Emanuel. “Divine Love and Wisdom” (¶70–71). The Lord as the organizing principle of all spiritual and natural reality, and the human being as a recipient vessel.

Dr. Leon James — Theistic Psychology Series

Dr. James’s works are cited by title and series. Unlike Swedenborg’s and Jung’s works, they do not use a standardized paragraph numbering system; readers are encouraged to consult the relevant volume directly.

26.  James, Leon. “Principles of Theistic Psychology” (14-volume series). Amazon/Kindle. Series overview in Vol. 1: “Introduction to Theistic Psychology.”

27.  James, Leon. “Individuation and the Collective Conscious: Discovering Our Immortal Self in a Telepathic Universe.” Theistic Psychology — Expanding the Narrative Series, Vol. 1. Amazon/Kindle. The central thesis that Jung’s psychic world and Swedenborg’s spiritual world refer to the same underlying mental-spiritual reality is developed throughout this volume.

28.  James, Leon. “Correspondences, Synchronicity, and the Spiritual Discipline of Self-Witnessing.” Theistic Psychology — Expanding the Narrative Series, Vol. 4. Amazon/Kindle. The parallel between Jung’s symbolism and Swedenborg’s doctrine of correspondences is a recurring theme.

29.  James, Leon. “Sacred Scripture, Dreams, and Archetypes: The Secret Connection.” Theistic Psychology — Expanding the Narrative Series, Vol. 3. Amazon/Kindle. The proposed equivalence of archetypes and ruling loves is central to this volume.

30.  James, Leon. Vol. 3 (see note 29). On the shared symbolic language of dreams and sacred scripture as drawing from the same spiritual source. See also Swedenborg, “Doctrines of the New Jerusalem Regarding the Sacred Scripture” (¶3); “Arcana Coelestia” (¶1984).

31.  James, Leon. “Personality and Afterlife Lifestyles: Getting Ready for Eternity.” Theistic Psychology — Expanding the Narrative Series. Amazon/Kindle. On regeneration and individuation as parallel processes, grounded in Swedenborg’s theocentric framework. See also Swedenborg, “Divine Love and Wisdom” (¶70–71); “True Christian Religion” (¶571–572).

32.  James, Leon. “Reality is Spiritual, Vol. 1: Dreams and the Spiritual World — Integrating the Psychology of Jung and Swedenborg.” Amazon/Kindle. See also Swedenborg, “Heaven and Hell” (¶348); “Divine Love and Wisdom” (¶115).

33.  Swedenborg, Emanuel. “Divine Providence” (¶321); “Heaven and Hell” (¶319). On the Lord’s continual guidance of the human being toward heaven through the inner life.