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.
One of the most vexing problems I encounter as an analyst is having adequate amplification material for an analysand who has ‘fallen in love’ and has begun to deal with its attendant suffering. I have wrung my hands over how best to help the analysand understand the transformation from romantic love to transpersonal love. John Haule's background in literature, theology, and analytical psychology makes his book Divine Madness: Archetypes of Romantic Love dance with relevance for assisting persons suffering through a ‘divine madness’.
John Haule opens his book about romantic love and the love of God with these words:
If puppy love is foolishness, a mature romantic love is full-blown madness…. Whether love is an insanity grandiosely claiming to be wise, or a sublime wisdom masquerading as folly, seems not to admit of calm debate. (p. 1)
Divine Madness is divided into three sections. Section one (Chapters 1-4) explores the foundations of human love, how to talk about love and the human psyche, and the consequences of losing love's unity in the projection process. Chapter 3 focuses on the Shaman as a model for unity. Chapter 4 deals with the ‘narcissistic wound’ found in romantic love. Section two (Chapters 5-10) examines the nature of the Demon Lover and how one gets caught in an unholy marriage. We move from seduction and fidelity to love play, to the lovers' quarrel, to love's refinement. Section three (Chapters 11-14) involves the reader in the Creative Third process, defined in Jungian psychology as an adequate transformation when opposites have been constellated. It pulls the reader into the practical and moral levels of understanding the effects of this Third way, e.g., the elusive Third is experienced in the moment one realizes that one's partner also feels misunderstood. This Third
seems to be a transpersonal, autonomous, directing intelligence, mutual to the two partners, somehow constituted by their union, and yet not reducible to either of them nor directly manip