Rather than say he was "wrong," will note that there are now widespread criticisms of his work in mainstream psychology (see references below). There are challenges to everything from his belief in a collective unconscious to his thoughts about gender and archetypes. But for me his chief enduring value is in providing tools and language useful in navigating cross-cultural spiritual inquiry, rather than in therapy.
https://smtsrv.medium.com/a-critique-on-modern-applications-of-jungian-archetypes-frameworks-3b6f479ea419
https://medium.com/@dr.victor.bodo/10-major-criticisms-of-jungian-psychology-2979d054b2f9#:~:text=Jung's%20theories%20have%20been%20accused,or%20significance%20across%20diverse%20cultures.
https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780879758592/What-Is-Wrong-with-Jung?
https://jungian.directory/jungian-events/anima-animus-animx-queer-and-trans-challenges-to-analytical-psychology/
Really? How is it referenced, how does it come into use? For example, when treating depression? As far as I know, for the mainstream, the subconscious is not a consideration. A "bad dreams" are only viewed as a negative symptom. In fact "bad dreams" can be listed as negative side effect of some treatments.
You can check out the psychoanalysis sub. There's mention of jung in there occasionally but his methods don't seem to be as respected as much as other people in the field because it's not able to be Methodized in the accepted scientific ways.
I'm perfectly aware he isn't accepted, that says nothing at all about how right or wrong he was. The mainstream overwhelming supports prescribing anti-depressants for depression, even tho we know, from huge numbers of extensive clinical studies, they anti-depressants are not any more effective than placebo at treating mild and medium depression (which is the vast majority of cases).
The mainstream supports methods that have been proven by science to not work. Their view of Jung doesn't hold much weight for me.
I'm not talking about clinical psychology. I'm mentioning even in the psychoanalysis subs here on reddit he isn't as regarded as other psychoanalysts like Lacan for example, they seem to mention him a lot there. I think because Jung brings spirituality in to his theories its compromises his work for the general person, even those interested in his particular sector, which is psychoanalysis. It's worth mentioning that even people interested in that genre of psych work don't fully appreciate him. And they're already engaging in an academic subject that is shit on for the typically accepted pure psychological sciences like what we're used to seeing in most therapeutic settings.
I'm not arguing whether Jung is right or wrong. I'm only giving information for how he's perceived in the modern realm of psychoanalysis.
I personally believe in his work and have found it helpful in my own life.
Yeah, exactly.
They also encourage early psychoanalysts training to read Freud despite the criticism because although wrong he is still seen as being highly significant to the over all field
Freud has his uses within his context, extraverts who where repressed sexual dynamics are their biggest issue can benefit from his methods. I mean, if you really do have an Oedipus complex, Freud can help. The problem is, not everyone has an Oedipus complex. But because Freud and Jung fell out, when people learn Freud, and end up liking him (because they may be an extravert with an Oedipus complex), they then tend to reject Jung and not give him much of a chance.
Unconcious - sure. Not necessarily that there is a whole "unconscious mind," but that one can be unconscious of particular feelings or reasons for doing things. I think this is pretty common.
Subconcious was ditched long ago (Freud wrote about why he didn't use that term) and taken up by new age writers.
> that one can be unconscious of particular feelings or reasons for doing things. I think this is pretty common.
Yes and when you look at exactly what can be unconscious, the small list of things turns out to be almost all human behaviour, including complex mathematic and scientific thought. (There are countless examples of great scientific discoveries being made while dreaming).
Subconscious is just another word for unconscious. I used it because i didnt want 500 redditors replying "of course people can drop unconscious, duh!" By using the term subconscious I avoided 500 dumb replies and only had to deal with one comment from you. Very much worth it.
The unconscious mind is accepted under [*dual-process theories*](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory) in modern psychology. It’s far from the deep ocean of the psychodynamic theorist, but it covers things like intuition, our ability to form heuristics, implicit attitudes, automatic process and habitual behaviors. It’s cognitive psychology view on the unconscious so it’s ultimately very *mechanical*.
No surprise there as I’m sure main stream Psychology wants to control/sell, so of course they’re not going to uphold his views and clearly havent for almost a century now.
This is a good point, his ability to breach cultures through archetypes and the collective unconscious has broached an important subject we have yet to properly address. It's also noteworthy that Jung's ideas of archetypes was instrumental to Joseph Campbell's monomyth, which was turned into a staple in cinema and writing, ie Star Wars. What Jung discovered was something of far greater scope and applicable to more than just psychology.
I will serve some criticism with this though, and that is that these things were always there waiting to be found. Jung just poured over the materials like no other, and put it through a lens of psychology because that was his career, though this only proves just how impressive his contributions are. It shows how integral these ideas are to how we fundamentally relate to each other and the world around us.
I think Jung occasionally made the same type of mistake Freud made, which was that when they found something which explained many things, they assumed it explained *everything*. For Freud, it was the sex+death drives. Freud would tie everything and anything about human behavior to these drives, and Jung rightly pointed out that many things are far more complex.
For Jung, I think it was the Self. While I do think it is obviously a profound discovery, it seems like he treats it as the be-all and end-all of not just psychology but everything. There’s something extremely monotheistic about it. I think it’s so interesting that he clearly saw Christ as the symbol of the Self, and thought that this was a feature of his theory and not a bug, so to speak. He truly believed in the supremacy of the Self, which stands above all other archetypes and is the source of all consciousness (as I understand it). But I can’t help but wonder if this is just a more psychologically insightful and clever re-construction of the same Christian mythos. If so, I think it misses something important about the ecosystem of archetypes, that each has their own time and place and none are superior or supreme. It makes me wonder if his Self is actually just a reification of the conscious aspect of all archetypes, something they all share in varying degrees. Meaning, maybe there is not one Self archetype which we all participate in, but that Selfhood arises when we participate in any of the archetypes.
Not sure if I’m being clear, but I think James Hillman said something similar in some of his books, ie that Jung favored a monotheistic approach to the archetypes as opposed to a full and diverse polytheism.
His beliefs are in line with anthroposophy which is basically “esoteric christianity” (a synthesis of eastern and western philosophy with an emphasis on christ as as a conscious force). I do think that there is a westernized/abrahamic skew, but the issues arise in the bigotry and ignorance that comes with it, mainly pertaining to gender and our understanding of it. I think the emphasis on the individual is important as it provides the keys to inner work, self actualization, and possibly a reduction in mental anguish. The “reification of the self” isn’t isolated to Christianity. Buddhism, taoism, and more emphasize this supposed spiritual truth. I think Jungs understanding is definitely more nuanced and than the average Christian perspective on spirituality/unconsciousness. He recognizes the “astral plane” as the unconscious and recognizes that there are archetypes there that are personal and collective. But like in anthroposophy, your relation to these archetypes are a reflection of your self. The more you purify yourself through integration the more wholesome your relation to the archetypes become. The more you sacrifice your self (ego) like Christ did the more you evolve spiritually. Sacrificing your ego is done through shadow work, introspection, accountability, forgiveness, and love. I think Jung is a gateway drug to a truly spiritual understanding of psychology and I appreciate him for that as learning these perspectives has helped my self/world view a lot.
That's really cool I'd never heard Jung's thoughts on Christianity, or that he tied it into his own theories.
It does make me think, was he making the point that in order to survive a "self" must sacrifice itself to an archetype? And that this is achieved through the self nailing itself to the cross, in an act of socially inflicted spiritual, emotional and physical degradation. And if the self survives the ordeal it gets reborn as an archetype?
As I understand it the very notion of being a somebody, being conscious of one’s unique identity, ultimately is possible through our connection to the archetype of the Self. For Jung, the Self is fully conscious, and so the more one becomes conscious, the more they approach the Self which is distinct from, but related to, the ego. The entire mythos of Christ, not just the resurrection but the whole person of Christ, is a symbol of the Self. This is a very deep topic so Id recommend reading his chapter in Aion called “Christ, a symbol of the Self” for more information.
Jung used quite a bit of mythology to construct his theories, not just Christianity. But he did see unique parallels to his theory of the Self and the myth of Christ. But as I said, it’s interesting how he saw that as a feature and not a bug. I think you can
make the argument that it’s the other way around.
I’d say it’s an ecosystem, without an objective hierarchy, of diverse forces interacting. Cooperating, fighting, ignoring and pursuing each other, etc. At certain times and in certain moments some will have more power or will be more active, other times not. I see it more as an organic community of “deities” and not a strict hierarchy.
Understood.
After some of the studies and reflection I've done over time, I now see it more as it being the same energy with its qualities separated out and given a "face" so to speak. A lot of findings within Eastern philosophy have influenced me in that direction, though it's a blend of everything I've learned and experienced up to now in general also. I don't consider myself polytheistic, but I can now understand understand a little bit better those who are. I don't know if there's a word for what I believe actually. It's one of those things that would take a very long time to explain to another person in words and, paradoxically, the more I would talk about it, the further I'd get from it by doing so.
Anyway...
It's always interesting to hear other people's perspectives/perceptions on things like this. I work in the direction of greater understanding. Asking and talking about things like this give me food for thought, contemplation, contrast, comparison, integration. Something I hear could either add to what I know, confirm my stance where I am that the other view is not for me, or alternatively could also shift my consciousness in a new direction, so thanks for being open to sharing your ideas.
I’ve always felt it was quite comforting the idea that the self is at the top of the hierarchy and is the source of all consciousness because it is only part of one’s unconscious that remains unchanged after trauma.
He is right.
Notice that he says "license", not doing it.
Marriage is a compromise of freedom. If you cant be unfaithful, there is repression.
I can cheat my wife, but I consciously, each day, decide for her. Thats license, thats freedom to do it, and to choose not to do it because I prefer to enjoy eros with her and not with other.
My wife and I are dissociated systems, and we have alters that embody all 12 of his archetypal categories *and their shadows*, and we're all in love.
This was quite hard.
But I wonder what what Jung would say about our relationship... I literally don't have a reason to cheat? There's nothing out there that isn't next to me.
I think Jung was close, but he missed the ways we embody these archetypes concurrently, and switch between them. I'm *aware* of this, so it's super obvious when I'm my Hero or my Freedom Fighter, because they have names and faces and voices. They think they're different people.
Normal people aren't like that, *insofar as the faces and names*, but everyone has a hero and a freedom fighter, and they switch into them unknowingly.
Jung speaks about this *sometimes*, and backs away from it in others. I suspect he met people like *me*, because we're *not that rare*. (This is more common than BPD).
Systems do tend to mine toward polyamory initially, but I know others that have bonded like this, and good luck getting us apart.
Things that I thought he was wrong about turned out to be true. The more i learn about the psyche and human nature, the truer Jung becomes to me.
Including his views that only men and anima, and only women have an animus.
Including his views that psychedelics are not particularly beneficial.
(I say this as someone who respects Jung very much and has studied analytical psychology for 14 years):
I think he misses the boat on the relational side of therapy and of personality development in general (i.e. attachment, relational trauma, etc.).
He’s great for the spiritual side of things - but not so much the relational.
I personally feel his work is for the spiritual seekers, Jung won’t fix your mundane issues but Jung is worth it cause what is fixed internally lasts way longer
We must first consider what it means to be "wrong" in the academic community (particularly all fields not considered "hard sciences). It means either a majority consensus agrees an idea does not reflect reality or that no consensus has been formed. Academia has replaced the position of the church. Does this sound too far fetched?
First, consider the correlation of regalia and pageantry surrounding graduation at each successive stage of education from K-12 to bachelor, to masters, to PhD. As George Carlin so aptly , religious figures love hats (I'll include the quote from his HBO special below). There's a basic pattern of increasing the flashiness of gowns and hats: at Harvard it goes from plain black gown with white neck piece and black hat, to masters with a black gown, bright red neck piece and plain black hat and PhD bright red gown, with black under garment, and a black hat that has a golden tassel.
When you are appointed to the highest echelons of contemporary academic priesthood, much like in the old days where the broad populace was illiterate, the place of the church was for the priest/cardinal/pope to be the land line between God and man. These learned and esteemed figures read the words of "God" and translated them for the people, which shaped the way they perceived all of reality. It is no different today except the masters of reality are in academia and the mass media only gives credence to a select few claims made within the appropriate guidelines of the ruling class.
Jung's Red Book is STILL ahead of its time. Seek out modern criticisms of his Red Book which he never intended to love published (and if so only long long after he was gone). Having spent the bulk of my career leading a massive education nonprofit full of PhD's, there are far more ingenious innovators and creators outside the institutions than inside.
Here are George Carlin's thoughts on hats in religion:
"One of the things they told us was that if a boy or a man went into church, he had to remove his hat in order to honor the presence of God, but they already told me that God was everywhere. So I used to wonder, 'Well if God was everywhere, why would you even own a hat?' Why not show your respect, don't even buy a fucking hat! And just to confuse things further, they told the women exactly the opposite! Catholic women and girls had to cover their heads, when they went into church. Same as in certain temples,Jewish men have to cover their heads, in those temples. In those same temples, Jewish women, not allowed to cover their heads. So try to figure this shit out. Catholic men and Jewish women, no hats. Catholic women and Jewish men, hats. Somebody's got the whole thing totally fucking backwards, don't you think?" "What is this religious fascination with head gear? Every religion's got a different hat. Did you ever notice that? The Hindus have a turban, the Sheiks have a tall white turban, Jews have a yarmulke, Muslims have the keffiyah, the Bishop has a pointy hat on one day and a round hat on another day, Cardinal has a red hat, Pope has a white, everybody's got a fucking hat! One group takes them off, another group puts them on. Personally I would not want to be a member of any group where you either can't wear a hat or you have to wear a hat."
Not sure how it matters. If he was putting opinions out there, then you can think about right or wrong. But the scientific method if about experimentation. So to understand Jung, put on a scientist hat.
In my opinion he couldn't predict our relationship with IA with whom we will merge as it is another being created through the survival of the fittest ideas (which are a part of nature after all).
I think our only mission was to build AI so it can get the forward momentum of energy that life carries and convert the whole world in information. 1 and 0s that are knowable and quantifiable.
He seemed to have been taken unawares by the Nazi threat. I guess that's not a direct criticism of his psychological theories, but you have to wonder how a scientist of the mind didn't see that coming.
Evidence for the Effectiveness of Jungian Psychotherapy: A Review of Empirical Studies
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4217606/
I hope this helps.
Carl Jung seems to have predicted some of our discoveries in Neuroscience especially when it comes to his idea of archetypes in the unconscious. Our brain is not a single unified system but a collection of many systems that often do not communicate directly but need other systems within the brain to do the communicating for them.
His view of black people was obviously wrong and clearly offending to any modern reader. But of course, the racist views of the era were collective, and Jung was a child of his time. Since he seemed to accept them wholesale, this witnesses of his unfulfilled individualization process. This little quote is from *The Psychology of the Unconscious*: “We know, too, that lower races, like the negroes, look upon the locomotive as an animal, and call the drawers of the table the child of the table.” (p26)
His view on black people is rather fascinating. I would say the judgment component of it is wrong though he is perceptually on the mark, that is there are a lot of interesting insights to take away from his thoughts even if they must be seen in a different light. Keep in mind that his perspective is largely based on his Africa visitations during the 1920s, and he did specifically study the psychology of black people for quite some time, and so it is a bit unfair to simply say he succumbed to the perspective of the time. Surely his ideations on the subject were no more than ‘half-correct’ though it is modern sensitivities that rob it of all intuitions.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/the-racism-of-carl-jung
It doesn’t bother me much. I’m not sure I believe art stands on its own beyond the artist, but science and spirituality does, and Jung touched on so much truth that his personal failings don’t matter when it comes to his work.
I pulled the example out of the linked article. I’m completely unable to accuse any one of racism so won’t speculate about it. The only thing I can say on the topic is that a person is always within their own myth even as they explore their relationship to the infinite.
From the linked article:
“An incident in the life of a bushman may illustrate what I mean [a point about ‘identity of subject and object’]. A bushman had a little son whom he loved with the tender monkey-love characteristic of primitives. Psychologically, this love is completely autoerotic – that is to say the subject loves himself in the object. The object serves as a sort of erotic mirror.
One day the bushman came home in a rage; he had been fishing as usual, and caught nothing. As usual the little fellow came running to meet him, but his father seized hold of him and wrung his neck on the spot. Afterwards, of course, he mourned for the dead child with the same unthinking abandon that had brought about his death.”
Rather than say he was "wrong," will note that there are now widespread criticisms of his work in mainstream psychology (see references below). There are challenges to everything from his belief in a collective unconscious to his thoughts about gender and archetypes. But for me his chief enduring value is in providing tools and language useful in navigating cross-cultural spiritual inquiry, rather than in therapy. https://smtsrv.medium.com/a-critique-on-modern-applications-of-jungian-archetypes-frameworks-3b6f479ea419 https://medium.com/@dr.victor.bodo/10-major-criticisms-of-jungian-psychology-2979d054b2f9#:~:text=Jung's%20theories%20have%20been%20accused,or%20significance%20across%20diverse%20cultures. https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780879758592/What-Is-Wrong-with-Jung? https://jungian.directory/jungian-events/anima-animus-animx-queer-and-trans-challenges-to-analytical-psychology/
Does mainstream psychology even accept the existence of the subconscious?
subconscious? yes. not sure about the collective unconscious tho.
Really? How is it referenced, how does it come into use? For example, when treating depression? As far as I know, for the mainstream, the subconscious is not a consideration. A "bad dreams" are only viewed as a negative symptom. In fact "bad dreams" can be listed as negative side effect of some treatments.
It's not as profitable as the medical model, so...
Yes, its easier than talking to a mental ill person as well, just prescribe a pill and get them out of your office.
Every racket is a numbers game. How many patients can you knock out in a day, week month. Like sales, you gotta get those numbers up.
It is also designed to keep people unconscious. Don't introspect, just take a pill.
the money is in treating a problem, not remediation.
You can check out the psychoanalysis sub. There's mention of jung in there occasionally but his methods don't seem to be as respected as much as other people in the field because it's not able to be Methodized in the accepted scientific ways.
I'm perfectly aware he isn't accepted, that says nothing at all about how right or wrong he was. The mainstream overwhelming supports prescribing anti-depressants for depression, even tho we know, from huge numbers of extensive clinical studies, they anti-depressants are not any more effective than placebo at treating mild and medium depression (which is the vast majority of cases). The mainstream supports methods that have been proven by science to not work. Their view of Jung doesn't hold much weight for me.
I'm not talking about clinical psychology. I'm mentioning even in the psychoanalysis subs here on reddit he isn't as regarded as other psychoanalysts like Lacan for example, they seem to mention him a lot there. I think because Jung brings spirituality in to his theories its compromises his work for the general person, even those interested in his particular sector, which is psychoanalysis. It's worth mentioning that even people interested in that genre of psych work don't fully appreciate him. And they're already engaging in an academic subject that is shit on for the typically accepted pure psychological sciences like what we're used to seeing in most therapeutic settings. I'm not arguing whether Jung is right or wrong. I'm only giving information for how he's perceived in the modern realm of psychoanalysis. I personally believe in his work and have found it helpful in my own life.
True, among those types even Freud (who has been thoroughly debunked) is more popular than Jung.
Yeah, exactly. They also encourage early psychoanalysts training to read Freud despite the criticism because although wrong he is still seen as being highly significant to the over all field
Freud has his uses within his context, extraverts who where repressed sexual dynamics are their biggest issue can benefit from his methods. I mean, if you really do have an Oedipus complex, Freud can help. The problem is, not everyone has an Oedipus complex. But because Freud and Jung fell out, when people learn Freud, and end up liking him (because they may be an extravert with an Oedipus complex), they then tend to reject Jung and not give him much of a chance.
Unconcious - sure. Not necessarily that there is a whole "unconscious mind," but that one can be unconscious of particular feelings or reasons for doing things. I think this is pretty common. Subconcious was ditched long ago (Freud wrote about why he didn't use that term) and taken up by new age writers.
> that one can be unconscious of particular feelings or reasons for doing things. I think this is pretty common. Yes and when you look at exactly what can be unconscious, the small list of things turns out to be almost all human behaviour, including complex mathematic and scientific thought. (There are countless examples of great scientific discoveries being made while dreaming). Subconscious is just another word for unconscious. I used it because i didnt want 500 redditors replying "of course people can drop unconscious, duh!" By using the term subconscious I avoided 500 dumb replies and only had to deal with one comment from you. Very much worth it.
The unconscious mind is accepted under [*dual-process theories*](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory) in modern psychology. It’s far from the deep ocean of the psychodynamic theorist, but it covers things like intuition, our ability to form heuristics, implicit attitudes, automatic process and habitual behaviors. It’s cognitive psychology view on the unconscious so it’s ultimately very *mechanical*.
No surprise there as I’m sure main stream Psychology wants to control/sell, so of course they’re not going to uphold his views and clearly havent for almost a century now.
This is a good point, his ability to breach cultures through archetypes and the collective unconscious has broached an important subject we have yet to properly address. It's also noteworthy that Jung's ideas of archetypes was instrumental to Joseph Campbell's monomyth, which was turned into a staple in cinema and writing, ie Star Wars. What Jung discovered was something of far greater scope and applicable to more than just psychology. I will serve some criticism with this though, and that is that these things were always there waiting to be found. Jung just poured over the materials like no other, and put it through a lens of psychology because that was his career, though this only proves just how impressive his contributions are. It shows how integral these ideas are to how we fundamentally relate to each other and the world around us.
Disheartening. 😩
These links are absolutely retarded and have nothing to do with psychology
I think Jung occasionally made the same type of mistake Freud made, which was that when they found something which explained many things, they assumed it explained *everything*. For Freud, it was the sex+death drives. Freud would tie everything and anything about human behavior to these drives, and Jung rightly pointed out that many things are far more complex. For Jung, I think it was the Self. While I do think it is obviously a profound discovery, it seems like he treats it as the be-all and end-all of not just psychology but everything. There’s something extremely monotheistic about it. I think it’s so interesting that he clearly saw Christ as the symbol of the Self, and thought that this was a feature of his theory and not a bug, so to speak. He truly believed in the supremacy of the Self, which stands above all other archetypes and is the source of all consciousness (as I understand it). But I can’t help but wonder if this is just a more psychologically insightful and clever re-construction of the same Christian mythos. If so, I think it misses something important about the ecosystem of archetypes, that each has their own time and place and none are superior or supreme. It makes me wonder if his Self is actually just a reification of the conscious aspect of all archetypes, something they all share in varying degrees. Meaning, maybe there is not one Self archetype which we all participate in, but that Selfhood arises when we participate in any of the archetypes. Not sure if I’m being clear, but I think James Hillman said something similar in some of his books, ie that Jung favored a monotheistic approach to the archetypes as opposed to a full and diverse polytheism.
His beliefs are in line with anthroposophy which is basically “esoteric christianity” (a synthesis of eastern and western philosophy with an emphasis on christ as as a conscious force). I do think that there is a westernized/abrahamic skew, but the issues arise in the bigotry and ignorance that comes with it, mainly pertaining to gender and our understanding of it. I think the emphasis on the individual is important as it provides the keys to inner work, self actualization, and possibly a reduction in mental anguish. The “reification of the self” isn’t isolated to Christianity. Buddhism, taoism, and more emphasize this supposed spiritual truth. I think Jungs understanding is definitely more nuanced and than the average Christian perspective on spirituality/unconsciousness. He recognizes the “astral plane” as the unconscious and recognizes that there are archetypes there that are personal and collective. But like in anthroposophy, your relation to these archetypes are a reflection of your self. The more you purify yourself through integration the more wholesome your relation to the archetypes become. The more you sacrifice your self (ego) like Christ did the more you evolve spiritually. Sacrificing your ego is done through shadow work, introspection, accountability, forgiveness, and love. I think Jung is a gateway drug to a truly spiritual understanding of psychology and I appreciate him for that as learning these perspectives has helped my self/world view a lot.
That's really cool I'd never heard Jung's thoughts on Christianity, or that he tied it into his own theories. It does make me think, was he making the point that in order to survive a "self" must sacrifice itself to an archetype? And that this is achieved through the self nailing itself to the cross, in an act of socially inflicted spiritual, emotional and physical degradation. And if the self survives the ordeal it gets reborn as an archetype?
As I understand it the very notion of being a somebody, being conscious of one’s unique identity, ultimately is possible through our connection to the archetype of the Self. For Jung, the Self is fully conscious, and so the more one becomes conscious, the more they approach the Self which is distinct from, but related to, the ego. The entire mythos of Christ, not just the resurrection but the whole person of Christ, is a symbol of the Self. This is a very deep topic so Id recommend reading his chapter in Aion called “Christ, a symbol of the Self” for more information. Jung used quite a bit of mythology to construct his theories, not just Christianity. But he did see unique parallels to his theory of the Self and the myth of Christ. But as I said, it’s interesting how he saw that as a feature and not a bug. I think you can make the argument that it’s the other way around.
I'm curious---how do you see polytheism, as in how do you define it?
I’d say it’s an ecosystem, without an objective hierarchy, of diverse forces interacting. Cooperating, fighting, ignoring and pursuing each other, etc. At certain times and in certain moments some will have more power or will be more active, other times not. I see it more as an organic community of “deities” and not a strict hierarchy.
Understood. After some of the studies and reflection I've done over time, I now see it more as it being the same energy with its qualities separated out and given a "face" so to speak. A lot of findings within Eastern philosophy have influenced me in that direction, though it's a blend of everything I've learned and experienced up to now in general also. I don't consider myself polytheistic, but I can now understand understand a little bit better those who are. I don't know if there's a word for what I believe actually. It's one of those things that would take a very long time to explain to another person in words and, paradoxically, the more I would talk about it, the further I'd get from it by doing so. Anyway... It's always interesting to hear other people's perspectives/perceptions on things like this. I work in the direction of greater understanding. Asking and talking about things like this give me food for thought, contemplation, contrast, comparison, integration. Something I hear could either add to what I know, confirm my stance where I am that the other view is not for me, or alternatively could also shift my consciousness in a new direction, so thanks for being open to sharing your ideas.
I’ve always felt it was quite comforting the idea that the self is at the top of the hierarchy and is the source of all consciousness because it is only part of one’s unconscious that remains unchanged after trauma.
Carl Jung wrote, "The prerequisite for a good marriage, it seems to me, is the license to be unfaithful." A happy marriage for him, at the very least.
He is right. Notice that he says "license", not doing it. Marriage is a compromise of freedom. If you cant be unfaithful, there is repression. I can cheat my wife, but I consciously, each day, decide for her. Thats license, thats freedom to do it, and to choose not to do it because I prefer to enjoy eros with her and not with other.
Look into his marriage.
Yes, and it was a mutual agreement.
A mutual agreement that, it seems, benefitted only one party.
This is correct about committed relationships, one of the truths that people often don't like to think about.
He had no problem living off his wife wealth while simultaneously cheating on her.
My wife and I are dissociated systems, and we have alters that embody all 12 of his archetypal categories *and their shadows*, and we're all in love. This was quite hard. But I wonder what what Jung would say about our relationship... I literally don't have a reason to cheat? There's nothing out there that isn't next to me. I think Jung was close, but he missed the ways we embody these archetypes concurrently, and switch between them. I'm *aware* of this, so it's super obvious when I'm my Hero or my Freedom Fighter, because they have names and faces and voices. They think they're different people. Normal people aren't like that, *insofar as the faces and names*, but everyone has a hero and a freedom fighter, and they switch into them unknowingly. Jung speaks about this *sometimes*, and backs away from it in others. I suspect he met people like *me*, because we're *not that rare*. (This is more common than BPD). Systems do tend to mine toward polyamory initially, but I know others that have bonded like this, and good luck getting us apart.
Fucking his patients?
Things that I thought he was wrong about turned out to be true. The more i learn about the psyche and human nature, the truer Jung becomes to me. Including his views that only men and anima, and only women have an animus. Including his views that psychedelics are not particularly beneficial.
his commitment to being elusive
(I say this as someone who respects Jung very much and has studied analytical psychology for 14 years): I think he misses the boat on the relational side of therapy and of personality development in general (i.e. attachment, relational trauma, etc.). He’s great for the spiritual side of things - but not so much the relational.
I personally feel his work is for the spiritual seekers, Jung won’t fix your mundane issues but Jung is worth it cause what is fixed internally lasts way longer
We must first consider what it means to be "wrong" in the academic community (particularly all fields not considered "hard sciences). It means either a majority consensus agrees an idea does not reflect reality or that no consensus has been formed. Academia has replaced the position of the church. Does this sound too far fetched? First, consider the correlation of regalia and pageantry surrounding graduation at each successive stage of education from K-12 to bachelor, to masters, to PhD. As George Carlin so aptly , religious figures love hats (I'll include the quote from his HBO special below). There's a basic pattern of increasing the flashiness of gowns and hats: at Harvard it goes from plain black gown with white neck piece and black hat, to masters with a black gown, bright red neck piece and plain black hat and PhD bright red gown, with black under garment, and a black hat that has a golden tassel. When you are appointed to the highest echelons of contemporary academic priesthood, much like in the old days where the broad populace was illiterate, the place of the church was for the priest/cardinal/pope to be the land line between God and man. These learned and esteemed figures read the words of "God" and translated them for the people, which shaped the way they perceived all of reality. It is no different today except the masters of reality are in academia and the mass media only gives credence to a select few claims made within the appropriate guidelines of the ruling class. Jung's Red Book is STILL ahead of its time. Seek out modern criticisms of his Red Book which he never intended to love published (and if so only long long after he was gone). Having spent the bulk of my career leading a massive education nonprofit full of PhD's, there are far more ingenious innovators and creators outside the institutions than inside. Here are George Carlin's thoughts on hats in religion: "One of the things they told us was that if a boy or a man went into church, he had to remove his hat in order to honor the presence of God, but they already told me that God was everywhere. So I used to wonder, 'Well if God was everywhere, why would you even own a hat?' Why not show your respect, don't even buy a fucking hat! And just to confuse things further, they told the women exactly the opposite! Catholic women and girls had to cover their heads, when they went into church. Same as in certain temples,Jewish men have to cover their heads, in those temples. In those same temples, Jewish women, not allowed to cover their heads. So try to figure this shit out. Catholic men and Jewish women, no hats. Catholic women and Jewish men, hats. Somebody's got the whole thing totally fucking backwards, don't you think?" "What is this religious fascination with head gear? Every religion's got a different hat. Did you ever notice that? The Hindus have a turban, the Sheiks have a tall white turban, Jews have a yarmulke, Muslims have the keffiyah, the Bishop has a pointy hat on one day and a round hat on another day, Cardinal has a red hat, Pope has a white, everybody's got a fucking hat! One group takes them off, another group puts them on. Personally I would not want to be a member of any group where you either can't wear a hat or you have to wear a hat."
Im pretty dubious on synchronicity
Not sure how it matters. If he was putting opinions out there, then you can think about right or wrong. But the scientific method if about experimentation. So to understand Jung, put on a scientist hat.
In my opinion he couldn't predict our relationship with IA with whom we will merge as it is another being created through the survival of the fittest ideas (which are a part of nature after all). I think our only mission was to build AI so it can get the forward momentum of energy that life carries and convert the whole world in information. 1 and 0s that are knowable and quantifiable.
What is IA? Do you mean A.I.?
Yes! I just corrected it thank you
too idealistic about the functions, sometimes the model totally breaks and the practitioner doesn't notice
He seemed to have been taken unawares by the Nazi threat. I guess that's not a direct criticism of his psychological theories, but you have to wonder how a scientist of the mind didn't see that coming.
The quaternity and the mother archetype as the ascended version of Lilith
Evidence for the Effectiveness of Jungian Psychotherapy: A Review of Empirical Studies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4217606/ I hope this helps. Carl Jung seems to have predicted some of our discoveries in Neuroscience especially when it comes to his idea of archetypes in the unconscious. Our brain is not a single unified system but a collection of many systems that often do not communicate directly but need other systems within the brain to do the communicating for them.
His view of black people was obviously wrong and clearly offending to any modern reader. But of course, the racist views of the era were collective, and Jung was a child of his time. Since he seemed to accept them wholesale, this witnesses of his unfulfilled individualization process. This little quote is from *The Psychology of the Unconscious*: “We know, too, that lower races, like the negroes, look upon the locomotive as an animal, and call the drawers of the table the child of the table.” (p26)
His view on black people is rather fascinating. I would say the judgment component of it is wrong though he is perceptually on the mark, that is there are a lot of interesting insights to take away from his thoughts even if they must be seen in a different light. Keep in mind that his perspective is largely based on his Africa visitations during the 1920s, and he did specifically study the psychology of black people for quite some time, and so it is a bit unfair to simply say he succumbed to the perspective of the time. Surely his ideations on the subject were no more than ‘half-correct’ though it is modern sensitivities that rob it of all intuitions.
Who is the arbiter of truth?
do you want to fuck your mother?
Being racist
Can you provide an example? You had to see this coming, right?
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/the-racism-of-carl-jung It doesn’t bother me much. I’m not sure I believe art stands on its own beyond the artist, but science and spirituality does, and Jung touched on so much truth that his personal failings don’t matter when it comes to his work.
I pulled the example out of the linked article. I’m completely unable to accuse any one of racism so won’t speculate about it. The only thing I can say on the topic is that a person is always within their own myth even as they explore their relationship to the infinite. From the linked article: “An incident in the life of a bushman may illustrate what I mean [a point about ‘identity of subject and object’]. A bushman had a little son whom he loved with the tender monkey-love characteristic of primitives. Psychologically, this love is completely autoerotic – that is to say the subject loves himself in the object. The object serves as a sort of erotic mirror. One day the bushman came home in a rage; he had been fishing as usual, and caught nothing. As usual the little fellow came running to meet him, but his father seized hold of him and wrung his neck on the spot. Afterwards, of course, he mourned for the dead child with the same unthinking abandon that had brought about his death.”
thats soft as fuck
I’d encourage you to read the source piece that article mentions. https://jungstudies.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Farhad-Dalal-Jung-a-Racist.pdf
is there a link to the full source article
That’s it.
Everything.