yes he does MS
I'm not a fan of Jung, but...
by Dogpatch 36 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
talesin
A great book to read re primal archetypes common ....
is "Women Who Run with the Wolves", by ..Clarissa Pinkola Estes -- though it's titled as a women's book, it really applies to both genders. Each chapter is about a different tradition/story that is common to different cultures, and it relates how these archetypes are applicable in the modern world, to help us relate to our true nature.
I like Jean Vanier's works, too (Joseph Campbell got me thinking of Vanier).
t
-
Band on the Run
I've read a lot of Jung in the past. Normally, I don't have Jungian dreams but reading one of his books certainly triggers them. I don't see Jungian therapy was being very pragmatic in terms of severe depression or anxiety where a biological basis exists. Psycholanalysis as treatment is dead. What I find draws me repeatedly to Jung is his work on archetypes and spirituality. Much of it seems far fetched to me on a rationa lbasis but I do feel what he writes about internally.
He started as Freud's much sought after Gentile psychiatric protege. Freud was a neurologist and Jewish. There is not much spirituality in Freud. Jung was the son of a Lutheran bishop raised in the church. He believed strongly in unseen forces and themes linking all humans. His work is valuable when analyzing literature. Unlike Freud, who debunked myth, Jung elevated myth.
I don't believe in Jung's specifics. Friends do Jungian therapy so it still is around in urban areas. I'm attracted to his gestatlt. Altho he did not formal belief, most progressive Christians practically worship Jung and C.S. Lewis. The presence of the numinous is real to me, which shocks me.
-
botchtowersociety
Great comment BOTR. You encapsulated some thoughts I wasn't sure how to express.
-
-
Band on the Run
I find the difference in reading Freud and Jung is immense. It is not so much the ideas but the writing style that is reflective of the ideas. Freud is a far easier read. Jung is hard for me to follow. Freud is calm and cold, setting forth his theses. Jung explodes all over the place.
There are Jung Societies in certain large citizens. Therapists and others gather to present papers and ideas. I attended a few. Again, it was more an anthropology class, or English lit than psychology. When I read Jung, I'm aware of the numinous. Otherwise, I am not.
Two weeks ago in church, they had their annual picnic outdoors so Eucharist was celebrated outdoors. The priest gave a sermon and paused, asking everyone to be silent. All of a sudden bird songs emerged and you could hear the wind through the trees. As soon as she resumed, it was gone.
-
Band on the Run
I loved Women Who Run with Wolves. I'm not certain all those tales are exactly as she interpreted but a larger truth is present. I don't run with the wolves enough. Curious where she learned to analyze all those fold tales and legends. I love the way it became a girlfirend to girlfriend book.
We aren't as bland as we appear on the surface if that book appealed to so many women. Very powerful. And women's lives are ignored by men. Women are powerful actors in these tales, not handmaidens who worship the man.
-
scotoma
Jung was quite a bit like Sylvia Brown. He believed in seances - spirits that haunt houses etc. He was a non-scientific charlatan.
He channeled several spirits on a regular basis. If it weren't for the financial support of his wealthy wife he would have been totally unknown.
-
doofdaddy
LOL! scotoma
Would you mind writing where you got that information? I have read deeply on Jung and what you have said is a mish mash. Yes, he wanted to know what happened at a seance, his mother was a rural Swiss, who raised him with the belief and had the "ability" herself. He looked for deeper understanding, rather than saying it was "spirits". I have never read he was a channeler and I have read the definitive biographies. As far as his wealthy wife, he was already on the path to fame before he met her but yes, her wealth initially made his research easier due to not having to analyze patients for his living (even though he continued with patients right through).
I guess you reckon he was a nazi too? LOL!
Many people hated Jung with a literal vengeance, esp Freud's fanatics. Maybe your info source?
-
mindseye
Jung did 'channel' early Gnostic teacher Basilides for the Seven Sermons of the Dead. He also had a spirit guide named Philemon. In Hoeller's commentary on Seven Sermons of the Dead, he writes how Jung had paranormal experiences in his house before he committed to his 'automatic writings' by Basilides.
Of course, detractors use this to mock Jung and dismiss him as a 'mystic'. From what I've read, it's hard to determine how literally he took these 'paranormal' experiences. It's possible he had some kind of psychosis, but was aware of it and used it as a source for his studies into the psyche. I strongly disagree that he was a 'charlatan'. What an overly rational approach often misses is that there is a side of the psyche that is highly irrational, and these irrational processes should not be dismissed as merely neurotic. The irrational has meaning too.
IMO, Jung gave us a middle way between mechanistic rationalism and rigid theological fundamentalism. He recognized the need for the 'spirituality' of the psyche, what most people call the 'soul'. In his more mainstream writings he gave us great insight into our personalities and development. To dismiss his work is to miss a treasure trove of value, especially for those making the transition from the theological point of view of the JWs.