Thread: Carl Jung

Originally posted by issaiah1332
I was wondering what some of your opinions were on Carl Jung's theories

Well it is hard to know where to begin.
I think he may have been a little umm. off. Psychologically as a whole. But as it seems with most very revolutionary men or woman they are rather eccentric. It seems they lack in other areas but excel tremendously in others.
'At any rate I do believe he was well ahead of his time in analyzing many things. Dreams in particular.

His theories on the Collective Unconcious as well as Synchronicity are quite interesting. I am not saying that I agree with them, but they do make you think!

I remember something about his theory on Synchronicity being taken from some of Immanual Kant's writings, right?

A great guy......Student of Freud untill Jung surpassed Freud's theory and Freud's "ego" couldn't handle the opposing views......Memories, Dreams and Reflections is brilliant because it is not just a biography of his life but one that includes dreams and visions being just as and often MORE important than the waking events of his life.........

I definitely agree with his theory on the collective unconscious...being as i've had friends describe a dream to me, and i can turn round and say i've had an identical, or at least very similar dream.
Now, assuming we're not all mind readers, where else is that similarity going to come from?

One might say archetypes and earlier shared experiences, but I would stick my tounge out at them for spoiling the fun.

I'm very interested in the idea of archetypes...i think i might have met another one of them, but i'm not sure...it's a dream that's still bugging me, i think maybe it ought to go into interpretations...

Originally posted by irishcream
...i think i might have met another one of them

Okay, you met an archetype. I think I know a format, a structure, and a friendly euphemism you might be interested in meeting as well. Sorry for the smart-assed remark, but I'm confused. Are you implying that archetypes are counscious of themselves? I think it's an interesting notion, perhaps worthy of discussion, but I bet Jung would have apoplexy.

His theories seem odd at first glance, but once you truly think about them you begin to wonder, then you begin to question, then you begin to understand. Understand that they are not so strange but they are actually psychologically acceptable. His theories revolutionized psychoanalytical views. His views on the collective unconsciousness are amazing he truly was a genius, his achetypial research lead to stunning views that still are being researched to this day.

brillant, I think the collective unconise may have a bigger impact on our shared reality than we think.

yes, it may be a more potent factor when applying parralel univeres and other things coinciding with that genre

Originally posted by O-Nieronaut


Okay, you met an archetype. I think I know a format, a structure, and a friendly euphemism you might be interested in meeting as well. Sorry for the smart-assed remark, but I'm confused. Are you implying that archetypes are counscious of themselves? I think it's an interesting notion, perhaps worthy of discussion, but I bet Jung would have apoplexy.

Not so much conscious of 'themselves' as such, because at the end of the day, they are manifestations of our own mind.
They don't have the power of reason, or anything like that.
Our brain creates these 'characters' in order to make us take notice of something.