You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The Daimonic has been defined by Rollo May as ‘any natural function which has the power to take over the whole person’ (MAY 6). The daimonic individual experiences his state of being with unusual intensity. The antidaimonic person, in contrast, is anhedonic or apathetic; he has repressed his daimon. A comparison may also be made between the dysdaimonic person, whose entire personality is dominated by one or more components of the daimonic, and the eudaimonic, who has integrated the daimonic into all spheres of his being. The dysdaimonic is ‘possessed’ and responds with a blind, impersonal, self-assertive push that is disconnected from his consciousness, while the eudaimonic experiences ever-deepening and ever-widening dimensions of consciousness. Yeats depicted the antidaimonic and the dysdaimonic in this couplet:
The best lack all conviction
While the worst are filled with a passionate intensity (YEATS 10).
The dysdaimonic may be destructive (one thinks of Hitler) or creative, like Michaelangelo or Van Gogh. It is not possible to suppress the daimonic, even if this were deemed desirable, for it would only erupt explosively later. Rather, one seeks to integrate the daimon so that one can ‘take possession’ of one's being rather than ‘be possessed’. In the course of psychotherapy, as of all meaningful relationships, there is a mutual experiencing of the daimonic and its reciprocal integration within those participating in the dialogue. In order to facilitate this integration, one must be cognizant of the forces that create dysdaimonia.
This paper considers, from the perspectives of Freudian, Jungian, and existential