368 replies to this topic

[Sherapy]

eight bits, on 17 January 2013 - 08:20 PM, said:

Howdy, Star



That's an interesting reading of Jung's ideas about about the self. Is it a fixed something that already exists, or is it something to be constructed? It's funny; as you may know mathematicians debate whether maths are discovered or invented (built). Maybe individuation and the self are like that: ambiguous as to the precise terms of their existence.



The last fifteen years of his life, after his NDE, saw a lot of movement in his thinking about God, although as a parson's son, nephew to two theologians, and descendant of both a freethinking rebel and a Catholic theologian from way back, Jung had religious thought in his blood.

I understand him to have distinguished between the imago Dei and the self. What I think did confuse a lot of people is that the archetypal respresentations of God and Self were the same, at least sometimes. But I think he intended to keep all three conceptually distinct.

His "definitive statement" about God was a January 1960 letter to the BBC magazine, The Listener, after a television interview in which he said he didn't "believe" in God, but rather he said, "I know." There is a discussion of that letter here:

http://uncertaintist...owledge-of-god/

and the text of the letter itself is available from the "Unlinks" section of the blog.

I have always concluded that Jung was speaking of intuition,  based on what I have read  that his g-d sense was an analogy for  intuition.
I do think that intuition is a way to perceive things that are a part of reality ( I have to add that I think that intuition is a way of perceiving but it is something that is cultivated and can be trusted if developed, by trusted I do not even imply or for one second suggest that it can vouch for g-ds or angels etc. etc. ) But I'm suggesting that for some people they can sense their way around things even when they cannot quite articulate what it is they are sensing. In fact, I think it is a common quality of one who is interested/and has a lot of experience in psychology or in working with patients.

Truthfully, I do not glean at all that Jung was arguing for a G-d from his letter or think that Jung thought there was a g-d(no shocker here as we all know my position on g-d) but instead was using this understanding as way to explain intuition.

This is Just my 2 cents, not anything more.

Edited by Sherapy, 17 January 2013 - 11:01 PM.

[Star of the Sea]

Sherapy, on 17 January 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

I have always concluded that Jung was speaking of intuition,  based on what I have read  that his g-d sense was an analogy for  intuition.
I do think that intuition is a way to perceive things that are a part of reality ( I have to add that I think that intuition is a way of perceiving but it is something that is cultivated and can be trusted if developed, by trusted I do not even imply or for one second suggest that it can vouch for gds or angels etc. etc. ) But I'm suggesting that for some people they can sense their way around things even when they cannot quite articulate what it is they are sensing. In fact, I think it is a common quality of one who is interested/and has a lot of experience in psychology or in working with patients.

Truthfully, I do not glean at all that Jung was arguing for a G-d from his letter or think that Jung thought there was a g-d(no shocker here as we all know my position on g-d) but instead was using this understanding as way to explain intuition.

This is Just my 2 cents, not anything more.

Yes Sheri I think he saw the 'self' something akin to God as an Archetype. That's an interesting point you made on 'intuition'

[Abramelin]

Professor T, on 17 January 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

Sweet as. It's quite subtle, I'll come clean regarding my intention here.
(btw, this is me picking your ego apart, which is kind of the way this thread has progressed)

Abramelin, your Ego is I think very sceptical in nature. Have not really been invoved with many of your posts, but what I've seen tells me that you are one for facts and figures, things you can measure and calculate and appreciate scientifically. Ghosts, Spirits, these kind of immesurable things are laughable in your opinion, and your big defence against these things is that they cant be measured or weighed or touched physically.. Also you measure and weigh your-self on the quality of information..

So I thought to myself, hmmmmmm, I'm going to manipulate his Ego into responding by placing emphasis on measuring the immeserable..



And your ego couldn't resist but respond with.



So, going back to the "Double bounce on the trampoline analogy".. From my perspective, I just double bounced your Ego into a direction/responce.. Don't think of this physically, because there was nothing physical about it.. It was my intention to get you to respond to measurement by enguaging you Ego.

Does that make sense?
"Or am I wrong?"

I am not very skeptical by nature, I have become skeptical based on my experience.

If I am only for things that can be measured, then what an I doing in a forum about philosophy and psychology?

And your analogy: if you stand on a trampoline doing nothing, you'll get bounced off, ie: something happens. If you do nothing in the standing wave analogy, nothing happens.

You think you 'made' me answer, but believe me: I could as easily have let it go and not say a word. However, I realized - like I said - that this is a forum about philosophy and psychology, so I thought it might be better to explain what I had posted before.

For me it was an interesting diversion from topics I'm usually engaged in on UM. What you don't know (and couldn't know) is that I had a board about 'spiritual things' (shamanism, philosphies, dreams and so on) for some 6 years. Hardly anything about 'hard facts' if you will.

[eight bits]

Star and Sheri

"Jung: God, Self and Ego" might be a better topic for a dissertation than a web forum posting .

Here's my take. I omit "in my opinion" throughout, but that's all it is.

Jung didn't intend his 1959 TV statement about God to replace the 1955 version in Time magazine. He was wrong-footed in the give-and-take of conversation, and the 1960 letter "takes it back." Status quo ante is his slightly but crucially longer 1955 statement:

"I could not say I believe. I know! I have had the experience of being gripped by something that is stronger than myself, something that people call God."

Unpacking that statement is the problem. "Something that people call God" is key, I think. Jung made a distinction between his scientific work and his personal work. "Something that people call God" is a statement about psychology, within his area of scientific expertise. What lies beyond science is what, if anything, is the external reality of this something that people call God.

That everybody is left to decide for themselves, both what's really out there and what Jung thought was really out there. He created a borderland, called "psychological reality," in which he could make "metaphysical statements" but commit himself to no more than that the statements talked about how people experienced things.

The borderland is a barrier to our looking beyond psychology through his eyes. We can only guess what Jung really thinks based on what he includes in his psychological reality. I think it is also meaningful to notice obvious things that he omits. The purpose of "psychological reality" is to compartmentlaize, so he might omit things that are too inflammatory, too revealing to include.

For example, the central events of Jung's life, both personal and professional, were his vivid encounters with Philemon, a psychologically real being whom anybody else would call an angel.

https://philemonfoun...n.org/philemon/

Jung places himself squarely within the culture that calls beings like Philemon angels, and he is indisputably steeped in that culture in real reality. But Jung doesn't call Philemon an angel.

What's up with that?

Another omission which I find crucial. Jung clearly believes that what happens in psychological reality is coordinated with or otherwise comes to pass in material reality. He will not explain how that coordination happens, but he will just leave it there that it does happen. The link is not just "agency," that someone might use material means to accomplish some goal they've adopted. But he did that, too, literally building, as in partly with his own hands, his literal dream house. Being an agent is also crucial to acquiring the experiences that promote individuation.

On that backhanded basis, I conclude that Jung's view was that Philemon is an angel, and in the most classic sense, an emissary of God. Perhaps the actual effect of "psychological reality" on Jung's perception, and so on his description, of such things is St Paul's (1 Cor 13:12)

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

If so, then who or what is the God who sent Philemon? A voice, like intuition or conscience? I think Jung was quite serious about the phrase "being gripped" in 1955, and that imagery is physical. As the 1960 letter puts it, he does confront a voice of God in the form of conscience, but God is identified with fate, and - wait for it - "My fate means very much myself."

So, I think Jung's God is not an analogy for anything, and is more than any entirely interior experience, but what exactly more than that, he isn't telling. Moreover, Jung's God wouldn't easily be described in words. Duh. However an ineffable God is hardly peculiar to Jung.

If I've got Jung's God right, then I would place Self as God's partner in a kind of theosis in the Eastern Orthodox usage. Their idea is that God and each human partner can exist in a sort of union, always distinct but also always asymptotically approaching unity. That is a process that unfolds over time, and outside of time as well. (Note to Star: theoretically, theosis is the Roman Catholic Beatific Vision, or so I am told.)

Jung's Self, then, maybe the "other party" in theosis, perhaps conceived of as being formed and molded during its actively pursued and ever increasing participation, rather than, say, being some fully formed object which might, in a physical analogy, passively find itself in a decaying orbit around a massive sun.

Just as I find it significant that Jung can go on and on about Philemon without saying the A-word, I find it remarkable that he can go on and on about church history and hardly ever mention theosis. There can be no question that he knew about the concept, however, and I think it is the Ur-model of his ideas about God and Self, to the extent that anything in words might ever capture the idea.

Finally, then, we see our old friend ego. He or she's just the part of the Self that's already lit up with consciousness. Ego would at first seem hardly worth mentioning compared with the enormity of the ocean of Self on which the little boat of ego floats, or the transcendent Cosmic Field whose tugs are the ocean's tides.

But, being lit up, little ego is the only part we see clearly, and the only part we can talk about, because it's the only part that can talk. Well, talk and we can hear it talking.

For now.

Those are my thoughts. Hopefully I have clarified something, if not what Jung actually thought, then at least what I think he might have thought.

[Sherapy]

eight bits, on 18 January 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

Star and Sheri

"Jung: God, Self and Ego" might be a better topic for a dissertation than a web forum posting .

Here's my take. I omit "in my opinion" throughout, but that's all it is.

Jung didn't intend his 1959 TV statement about God to replace the 1955 version in Time magazine. He was wrong-footed in the give-and-take of conversation, and the 1960 letter "takes it back." Status quo ante is his slightly but crucially longer 1955 statement:

"I could not say I believe. I know! I have had the experience of being gripped by something that is stronger than myself, something that people call God."

Unpacking that statement is the problem. "Something that people call God" is key, I think. Jung made a distinction between his scientific work and his personal work. "Something that people call God" is a statement about psychology, within his area of scientific expertise. What lies beyond science is what, if anything, is the external reality of this something that people call God.

That everybody is left to decide for themselves, both what's really out there and what Jung thought was really out there. He created a borderland, called "psychological reality," in which he could make "metaphysical statements" but commit himself to no more than that the statements talked about how people experienced things.

The borderland is a barrier to our looking beyond psychology through his eyes. We can only guess what Jung really thinks based on what he includes in his psychological reality. I think it is also meaningful to notice obvious things that he omits. The purpose of "psychological reality" is to compartmentlaize, so he might omit things that are too inflammatory, too revealing to include.

For example, the central events of Jung's life, both personal and professional, were his vivid encounters with Philemon, a psychologically real being whom anybody else would call an angel.

https://philemonfoun...n.org/philemon/

Jung places himself squarely within the culture that calls beings like Philemon angels, and he is indisputably steeped in that culture in real reality. But Jung doesn't call Philemon an angel.

What's up with that?

Another omission which I find crucial. Jung clearly believes that what happens in psychological reality is coordinated with or otherwise comes to pass in material reality. He will not explain how that coordination happens, but he will just leave it there that it does happen. The link is not just "agency," that someone might use material means to accomplish some goal they've adopted. But he did that, too, literally building, as in partly with his own hands, his literal dream house. Being an agent is also crucial to acquiring the experiences that promote individuation.

On that backhanded basis, I conclude that Jung's view was that Philemon is an angel, and in the most classic sense, an emissary of God. Perhaps the actual effect of "psychological reality" on Jung's perception, and so on his description, of such things is St Paul's (1 Cor 13:12)

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

If so, then who or what is the God who sent Philemon? A voice, like intuition or conscience? I think Jung was quite serious about the phrase "being gripped" in 1955, and that imagery is physical. As the 1960 letter puts it, he does confront a voice of God in the form of conscience, but God is identified with fate, and - wait for it - "My fate means very much myself."

So, I think Jung's God is not an analogy for anything, and is more than any entirely interior experience, but what exactly more than that, he isn't telling. Moreover, Jung's God wouldn't easily be described in words. Duh. However an ineffable God is hardly peculiar to Jung.

If I've got Jung's God right, then I would place Self as God's partner in a kind of theosis in the Eastern Orthodox usage. Their idea is that God and each human partner can exist in a sort of union, always distinct but also always asymptotically approaching unity. That is a process that unfolds over time, and outside of time as well. (Note to Star: theoretically, theosis is the Roman Catholic Beatific Vision, or so I am told.)

Jung's Self, then, maybe the "other party" in theosis, perhaps conceived of as being formed and molded during its actively pursued and ever increasing participation, rather than, say, being some fully formed object which might, in a physical analogy, passively find itself in a decaying orbit around a massive sun.

Just as I find it significant that Jung can go on and on about Philemon without saying the A-word, I find it remarkable that he can go on and on about church history and hardly ever mention theosis. There can be no question that he knew about the concept, however, and I think it is the Ur-model of his ideas about God and Self, to the extent that anything in words might ever capture the idea.

Finally, then, we see our old friend ego. He or she's just the part of the Self that's already lit up with consciousness. Ego would at first seem hardly worth mentioning compared with the enormity of the ocean of Self on which the little boat of ego floats, or the transcendent Cosmic Field whose tugs are the ocean's tides.

But, being lit up, little ego is the only part we see clearly, and the only part we can talk about, because it's the only part that can talk. Well, talk and we can hear it talking.

For now.

Those are my thoughts. Hopefully I have clarified something, if not what Jung actually thought, then at least what I think he might have thought.

@8bits/Star

Very interesting and you(8bits) could be 100 percent on this. I just see it different.


I spent a year (4 times a week) in Psychoanalysis(after my sister was murdered) My opinion only reflects this experience to be clear.  In Psychoanalysis, the way I experienced it --one explores the symbolic meaning of their dreams. It is personal to each person and symbols would be a reflection of their own conditioning/ tradition/teachings/culture/religion etc. and these symbols are a way for the person to understand and explore their own life to seek clarity, work through issues and gain understandings and connect to the many aspects of a multifarious self if you will. In other words-- dream books are just a over generalized idea of what goes on in Psychoanalysis e.g. bears will not hold the same meaning for all of us. I think that is the point Jung is making, or as Star suggested is nothing more than archetypes.  For ex: I dreamed often of vampires which represented my fears (yet I hold no belief in vampires-- nor do I think I have a personal one, nor do I think they are real. It was just a way to confront my fears at the time subconsciously.) I have a hunch that now a days my representation of fear would not be vampires. I do not think symbols are static. They represent a moment in time. Just my 2 cents leaving me to ponder a lot of intriguing questions.

I think That 'Philemon' for Jung was his representation of objectivity/super ego at the time --just as a vampire complete with castle was mine for fear at the time.

Of course I could be wrong and most likely am. Wouldn't it be grand to be able to have a Jung's Last Session and ask.
For now we are just left with our own ideas on things.

Great conversation 8ty and Star.

Edited by Sherapy, 18 January 2013 - 05:34 PM.

[Star of the Sea]

eight bits, on 18 January 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

Star and Sheri

"Jung: God, Self and Ego" might be a better topic for a dissertation than a web forum posting .

Here's my take. I omit "in my opinion" throughout, but that's all it is.

Jung didn't intend his 1959 TV statement about God to replace the 1955 version in Time magazine. He was wrong-footed in the give-and-take of conversation, and the 1960 letter "takes it back." Status quo ante is his slightly but crucially longer 1955 statement:

"I could not say I believe. I know! I have had the experience of being gripped by something that is stronger than myself, something that people call God."

Unpacking that statement is the problem. "Something that people call God" is key, I think. Jung made a distinction between his scientific work and his personal work. "Something that people call God" is a statement about psychology, within his area of scientific expertise. What lies beyond science is what, if anything, is the external reality of this something that people call God.

That everybody is left to decide for themselves, both what's really out there and what Jung thought was really out there. He created a borderland, called "psychological reality," in which he could make "metaphysical statements" but commit himself to no more than that the statements talked about how people experienced things.

The borderland is a barrier to our looking beyond psychology through his eyes. We can only guess what Jung really thinks based on what he includes in his psychological reality. I think it is also meaningful to notice obvious things that he omits. The purpose of "psychological reality" is to compartmentalize, so he might omit things that are too inflammatory, too revealing to include.

For example, the central events of Jung's life, both personal and professional, were his vivid encounters with Philemon, a psychologically real being whom anybody else would call an angel.

https://philemonfoun...n.org/philemon/

Jung places himself squarely within the culture that calls beings like Philemon angels, and he is indisputably steeped in that culture in real reality. But Jung doesn't call Philemon an angel.

What's up with that?

Another omission which I find crucial. Jung clearly believes that what happens in psychological reality is coordinated with or otherwise comes to pass in material reality. He will not explain how that coordination happens, but he will just leave it there that it does happen. The link is not just "agency," that someone might use material means to accomplish some goal they've adopted. But he did that, too, literally building, as in partly with his own hands, his literal dream house. Being an agent is also crucial to acquiring the experiences that promote individuation.

On that backhanded basis, I conclude that Jung's view was that Philemon is an angel, and in the most classic sense, an emissary of God. Perhaps the actual effect of "psychological reality" on Jung's perception, and so on his description, of such things is St Paul's (1 Cor 13:12)

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

If so, then who or what is the God who sent Philemon? A voice, like intuition or conscience? I think Jung was quite serious about the phrase "being gripped" in 1955, and that imagery is physical. As the 1960 letter puts it, he does confront a voice of God in the form of conscience, but God is identified with fate, and - wait for it - "My fate means very much myself."

So, I think Jung's God is not an analogy for anything, and is more than any entirely interior experience, but what exactly more than that, he isn't telling. Moreover, Jung's God wouldn't easily be described in words. Duh. However an ineffable God is hardly peculiar to Jung.

If I've got Jung's God right, then I would place Self as God's partner in a kind of theosis in the Eastern Orthodox usage. Their idea is that God and each human partner can exist in a sort of union, always distinct but also always asymptotically approaching unity. That is a process that unfolds over time, and outside of time as well. (Note to Star: theoretically, theosis is the Roman Catholic Beatific Vision, or so I am told.)

Jung's Self, then, maybe the "other party" in theosis, perhaps conceived of as being formed and molded during its actively pursued and ever increasing participation, rather than, say, being some fully formed object which might, in a physical analogy, passively find itself in a decaying orbit around a massive sun.

Just as I find it significant that Jung can go on and on about Philemon without saying the A-word, I find it remarkable that he can go on and on about church history and hardly ever mention theosis. There can be no question that he knew about the concept, however, and I think it is the Ur-model of his ideas about God and Self, to the extent that anything in words might ever capture the idea.

Finally, then, we see our old friend ego. He or she's just the part of the Self that's already lit up with consciousness. Ego would at first seem hardly worth mentioning compared with the enormity of the ocean of Self on which the little boat of ego floats, or the transcendent Cosmic Field whose tugs are the ocean's tides.

But, being lit up, little ego is the only part we see clearly, and the only part we can talk about, because it's the only part that can talk. Well, talk and we can hear it talking.

For now.

Those are my thoughts. Hopefully I have clarified something, if not what Jung actually thought, then at least what I think he might have thought.

Hi 8Bits,

I had a discussion with my Mother today regarding Jung (my mum is a retired Psychologist/Counsellor) she also studied Jung and she always wondered whether or not Jung really 'qualified' his theories on the conscious, unconscious and Self with regard to God. As you say (what I've highlighted in red below) happens to be exactly what we discussed, the deeper meanings of: 'Who or what is the God who sent Philemon?' Also pertinent to the question  we debated is 'If it was his conscience.. it begs the question "What exactly is our conscience?'

If so, then who or what is the God who sent Philemon? A voice, like intuition or conscience? I think Jung was quite serious about the phrase "being gripped" in 1955, and that imagery is physical. As the 1960 letter puts it, he does confront a voice of God in the form of conscience, but God is identified with fate, and - wait for it - "My fate means very much myself."

It's interesting you bring up 'theosis' which can be likened to his work, but as you say it is strangely absent as there are glaring obvious parallels in his works. He has also been accused by some in the RCC in trying to sabotage the Catholic liturgy. Some of his work echoes "St John of the Cross and the Dark night of the Soul" and I think many Roman Catholics gravitated towards Jung.

In a letter to Freud he said: "I think we must give [psychoanalysis] time to infiltrate into people from many centers, to revivify among intellectuals a feeling for symbol and myth, ever so gently to transform Christ back into the soothsaying god of the vine, and in this way absorb those ecstatic instinctual forces of Christianity for the one purpose of making the cult and the sacred myth what they once were—a drunken feast of joy where man regained the ethos and holiness of an animal."

Jung is a mystery to me! IMO there is some truth in his works but he leans to the occult far too much for my own personal taste. Strangely enough some of his theories work well in Psychoanalysis which is paradoxical for me lol!

Anyway, fascinating stuff and yes it would be more appropriate for a 'dissertation'

Apologies Prof T for going a bit off topic!

Edited by Star of the Sea, 18 January 2013 - 08:30 PM.

[Star of the Sea]

Sherapy, on 18 January 2013 - 05:27 PM, said:

@8bits/Star

Very interesting and you(8bits) could be 100 percent on this. I just see it different.


I spent a year (4 times a week) in Psychoanalysis(after my sister was murdered) My opinion only reflects this experience to be clear.  In Psychoanalysis, the way I experienced it --one explores the symbolic meaning of their dreams. It is personal to each person and symbols would be a reflection of their own conditioning/ tradition/teachings/culture/religion etc. and these symbols are a way for the person to understand and explore their own life to seek clarity, work through issues and gain understandings and connect to the many aspects of a multifarious self if you will. In other words-- dream books are just a over generalized idea of what goes on in Psychoanalysis e.g. bears will not hold the same meaning for all of us. I think that is the point Jung is making, or as Star suggested is nothing more than archetypes.  For ex: I dreamed often of vampires which represented my fears (yet I hold no belief in vampires-- nor do I think I have a personal one, nor do I think they are real. It was just a way to confront my fears at the time subconsciously.) I have a hunch that now a days my representation of fear would not be vampires. I do not think symbols are static. They represent a moment in time. Just my 2 cents leaving me to ponder a lot of intriguing questions.

I think That 'Philemon' for Jung was his representation of objectivity/super ego at the time --just as a vampire complete with castle was mine for fear at the time.

Of course I could be wrong and most likely am. Wouldn't it be grand to be able to have a Jung's Last Session and ask.
For now we are just left with our own ideas on things.

Great conversation 8ty and Star.

Hi Sheri,

I just replied to 8Bits with regard to Jung's works and how paradoxically (for me at least) his style of Psychoanalysis can work really well. Jung is fascinating though, but I'm not sure if anyone will ever fully understand him! There are a lot of our fears/hopes etc symbolised in our dreams and nightmares as you say Sheri

Edited by Star of the Sea, 18 January 2013 - 08:52 PM.

[Sherapy]

Star of the Sea, on 18 January 2013 - 07:53 PM, said:

Hi 8Bits,

I had a discussion with my Mother today regarding Jung (my mum is a retired Psychologist/Counsellor) she also studied Jung and she always wondered whether or not Jung really 'qualified' his theories on the conscious, unconscious and Self with regard to God. As you say (what I've highlighted in red below) happens to be exactly what we discussed, the deeper meanings of: 'Who or what is the God who sent Philemon?' Also pertinent to the question  we debated is 'If it was his conscience.. it begs the question "What exactly is our conscience?'

If so, then who or what is the God who sent Philemon? A voice, like intuition or conscience? I think Jung was quite serious about the phrase "being gripped" in 1955, and that imagery is physical. As the 1960 letter puts it, he does confront a voice of God in the form of conscience, but God is identified with fate, and - wait for it - "My fate means very much myself."

It's interesting you bring up 'theosis' which can be likened to his work, but as you say it is strangely absent as there are glaring obvious parallels in his works. He has also been accused by some in the RCC in trying to sabotage the Catholic liturgy. Some of his work echoes "St John of the Cross and the Dark night of the Soul" and I think many Roman Catholics gravitated towards Jung.

In a letter to Freud he said: "I think we must give [psychoanalysis] time to infiltrate into people from many centers, to revivify among intellectuals a feeling for symbol and myth, ever so gently to transform Christ back into the soothsaying god of the vine, and in this way absorb those ecstatic instinctual forces of Christianity for the one purpose of making the cult and the sacred myth what they once were—a drunken feast of joy where man regained the ethos and holiness of an animal."

Jung is a mystery to me! IMO there is some truth in his works but he leans to the occult far too much for my own personal taste. Strangely enough some of his theories work well in Psychoanalysis which is paradoxical for me lol!

Anyway, fascinating stuff and yes it would be more appropriate for a 'dissertation'

Apologies Prof T for going a bit off topic!

Star, I have to share with you I have heard similar things-- this is based on many personal discussions with a Psychologist pal of mine(who still sees clients) it is my understanding Jung is not to prevalent these days.I have to be honest my friend comes from the Freudian school of thought and at 84 she refers to Freud a lot (albeit she did not limit herself to Freud, she studied many approaches) and it is my understanding that although his ideas on unconscious instinctual drives and suppressed traumas didn't hold up, many of his ideas and contributions about the therapeutic setting and practice are still going strong today. It is also my understanding that what seems to hold up about Jung is his contributions to understanding personality-- namely introversion and extroversion. Personally-- I have experienced dream therapy and it was nothing short of fascinating and insightful for me. As you I think Jung's ideas still work for some.


Great post my dear, it was a interesting read.

Edited by Sherapy, 18 January 2013 - 10:04 PM.

[Professor T]

Star of the Sea, on 18 January 2013 - 07:53 PM, said:

Apologies Prof T for going a bit off topic!

No Worries!
Your Ego's crack me up!
Besides, this was quite interesting.. I even watched the Jung Interview. imo, it was the delivery of his comment as much the comment it's self that caused such a fuss.

Edited by Professor T, 19 January 2013 - 01:43 AM.

[Professor T]

Asadora, on 17 January 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

“ Ego is the biggest enemy of humans. ” -- The Rig Veda

[A polite request: Please don't flame. I am  just inserting a relevant quote to a relevant thread.]


Thank you.

Nice quote..
But what are your thoughts on Ego?

[Professor T]

notoverrated, on 17 January 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

ok what is mine, Prof. T?

Hmmm, tricky....
Youre one of these folks I don't really know how to interpret because you use Ego as a tool, you admire it in others and use others ego to inspire positive change in yours..  

From what I've seen of your posts and comments you are very honest.. Honest with your self, and honest with others.. Your thoughtful, difficult to manipulate.. you can be damn stubborn at times....

Am I right?

[F3SS]

I was referred here by someone. Thinks I need analyzed. Anyone who knows me here, have at it.

[Likely Guy]

Okay. I just happened to be here, so why not?

Mr. Fess, ...politically, you lean to the right. You're a strong supporter of the 2nd ammendment, you're older than the average UM member and you love your dog.

Pretty scary, eh?

Edit: Just checked your profile. Agewise, you're probably average.

Edited by Likely Guy, 25 January 2013 - 04:05 AM.

[F3SS]

Likely Guy, on 25 January 2013 - 03:56 AM, said:

Okay. I just happened to be here, so why not?

Mr. Fess, ...politically, you lean to the right. You're a strong supporter of the 2nd ammendment, you're older than the average UM member and you love your dog.

Pretty scary, eh?

Wow! You're good!

[Likely Guy]

-Mr_Fess-, on 25 January 2013 - 04:05 AM, said:

Wow! You're good!

Okay. You do me!