Thread: Carl Jung

By what standard do you call him interesting? When I was about 13 or so, and started my study of psychology, I found no particular advantage of Jung's ideas. No one had a standard by which they looked to, a definition of mind that they were working with. Therefore, what they were calling a science did not put it into the category of a craft. One of the few people in history that made psychology a craft, based upon the definition of the mind, responding to a solid metaphysics, was Plato. however, no one followed Plato--because no one understood what he was about. Or, too few in history to make a foundation.

Jung was different, but hardly better.

Plato based his work on the fact that the mind has a particular job to do and it does it in a particular manner--through a synthesis of emotion and language--rationality being the form imposed upon passion--to effect human will.

Plato also used a two prong approach, the manipulation of emotion-- through mythology, and directly, while exercising rational principles of the mind.

Today they seem to think they can drug and talk you out of insanity, Plato, on the contrary was trying to teach men how to talk.

Plato was way beyond even today in his understanding of human psychology. Psychology is a craft based on solid principles which have not yet been recognized by today's group of genius's. That craft creates human will with the elements of emotion and reason.

I like Carl Jung. I've read a bunch of his books in the past year.

I like him as well, a few years back I ran into a college book, it was a Dreamwork book from Berkley college made in the 80's. It was an actual college book, -really- in depth stuff. that reminds me i need to have my sister mail it to me...

I was reading when he was younger he had a dream that he went to an underground chamber and saw a phallis statue that was 7 feet tall with an eye on the top of it and his mother yelled out "It's the maneater" or something of that nature and everyone who studies Jung tries to interprete this dream.

Jung is interesting particularly his ideas of the collective unconscious and synchronicity as well as his work on archetypes and mythology(I love love love Joseph Campbell). I think Jung is too, I guess you could say "New Age" to be taken seriously by his psychoanalysis peers. I prefer Lacan who takes Freuds ideas on the unconscious and applies them to language hence his famous statement "the unconscious is structured like a language" because it operates in symbols.

Jung was a very interesting man indeed, whether one disagrees or agrees with his work. He was a trailblazer of modern psychology. I would suggest you read three books if you would wish to better understand this man in his genius as well as his faults: The Jung Cult : Origins of a Charismatic Movement, Man and His Symbols and Memories, Dreams, Reflections. These books will sum up his faults and failings, his life's work, and his life's path respectively.

As a point of interest, his work is oft taken out of context, misread and misunderstood, and such misunderstanding of his work is thought by a good many to have sparked this "new age" occultist movement.

I am interested in Jung for his in-depth look at the workings of human symbolism. I find his ideas very compelling and they have helped me to become better acquainted with and have a deeper understanding of the dialog of symbolism that is my dreams.