I’ve always thought of Jung as part of the broader Gnostic tradition in Western culture — Wayfarer

That seems reasonable. Perhaps what makes Jung stand out is a self-consciousness about the process (or perhaps his lingo is just easier for us.) I found some relevant passages that I remember reading and being moved by many years ago.

The second way would be that of identification with the collective psyche. That would mean the symptom of "God-Almightiness" developed into a system; in other words, one would be the fortunate possessor of the absolute truth, that had yet to be discovered; of the conclusive knowledge, which would be the people's salvation. This attitude is not necessarily megalomania ("Grössenwahn") in a direct form, but the well-known milder form of having a prophetic mission. Weak minds which, as is so often the case, have correspondingly an undue share of vanity and misplaced naïveté at their disposal, run a considerable risk of succumbing to this temptation. The obtaining access to the collective psyche signifies a renewal of life for the individual, whether this renewal of life be felt as something pleasant or unpleasant. It would seem desirable to retain a hold upon this renewal: for one person, because it increases his feeling for life ("Lebensgefühl"); for another, because it promises a great accretion to his knowledge. Therefore both of them, not wishing to deprive themselves of the rich values that lie buried in the collective psyche, will endeavour by every means possible to retain their newly gained union with the primal cause of life. Identification appears to be the nearest way to it, for the merging of the persona in the collective psyche is a veritable lure to unite one's self with this "ocean of divinity," and, oblivious of the past, to become absorbed in it. This piece of mysticism belongs to every finer individual, just as the "yearning for the mother"—the looking back to the source whence one originated—is innate in every one.

As I have demonstrated explicitly before,[254] there is a special value and a special necessity hidden in the regressive longing—which, as is well-known, Freud conceives as "infantile fixation" or as "incest-wish." This necessity and longing is particularly emphasized in myths, where it is always the strongest and best of people, in other words, the hero, who[463] follows the regressive longing and deliberately runs into danger of letting himself be devoured by the monster of the maternal first cause. But he is a hero only because, instead of letting himself be finally devoured by the monster, he conquers it, and that not only once but several times. It is only through the conquest of the collective psyche that its true value can be attained, whether it be under the symbol of capture of treasure, of an invincible weapon, of a magical means of defence, or whatever else the myth devises as the most desirable possession. Hence whoever identifies himself with the collective psyche, also reaches the treasure which the dragon guards, but against his will and to his own great injury, by thus allowing himself (mythologically speaking) to be devoured by the monster and merged with it. — Jung

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48225/48225-h/48225-h.htm#Page_449

Merging with the monster sounds like 'individuation' or the assimilation of irrational and otherwise destructive forces.

In other words, the self that's supposed to be immortal is mere persona or mask. It's the species that's (relatively) immortal, precisely through the generation and destruction of individuals (which can be viewed as cells in a larger organism.) — T H E

This is, no doubt, derivative of Schopenhauer's [ 'gnostic' unconsciousness-noumenon-will ] of which 'individuals' are merely masks/maya.

This is, no doubt, derivative of Schopenhauer's [ 'gnostic' unconsciousness-noumenon-will ] of which 'individuals' are merely masks/maya. — 180 Proof

That sounds right, and then he got it from somewhere, which is support for the idea itself, I guess.

In the whole world there is no study so beneficial and so elevating as that of the Upanishads. It has been the solace of my life, it will be the solace of my death. — Sch

Which is an interesting comment - Catholicism finds Jung a greater threat because he’s ‘subtly mistaken’ rather than just ‘bluntly atheistic’ - which I think would be typical of Catholic critics of Jung. — Wayfarer

It's interesting you say this. I think Catholicism may be more diverse. I attended an elective on Myths and Symbols (A Jungian Perspective) taught by a practicing Catholic and Jung nut - the course also had as students a couple of Brigidine nuns. They said Jung was very popular with the sisters. Years later I attended a conference in mental health with a day devoted to Jung - a Catholic nun leading the session. I have always associated Jung with the best of the enquiring Catholic tradition. But I also recognize that there are dark, reactionary focus in the Church which are at odds with anything that isn't conservative doctrine.

I do wonder if the idea of the collective unconscious is too fuzzy, however, and I do believe that the concept does need a lot more analysis within philosophy. — Jack Cummins

Before 1916 and Jung's use of the term Collective Unconscious (which is a beauty) he fumbled with less auspicious names - 'the spirit world' and 'land of the dead' - which would never have resonated with as many people and had far less scientific appeal. But perhaps these gives us more of a sense of what he was actually thinking. Collective Unconscious provided a more dignified, less superphysical orientation for his scientific colleagues to relate to and was a master stroke of branding, if you ask me.

Re 'the person' - Cultural differentiation is something that occurs over centuries, individual differentiation over lifetimes. The various depictions of psyche as spirit or soul in religious philosophies are supposedly intended to awaken the subject to the eternally-existent essence (the ātman) - which is 'transpersonal'. The jungian archetypes likewise inhere in a 'supra-individual' level of psyche, as they're cultural forms of which the individual is an instance or emanation. Within this hierarchy, the 'persona' is the ego, the aspect of the mind known to the discursive intelligence, and in some ways, the tip of an iceberg (and named after the masks worn by the actors in Greek dramas.) What Freud and Jung point out is what is going on beneath the conscious intellect in the form of drives, fears, and the like. I suppose you could say, a lot of that content is primitive, as it is associated with the more archaic areas of the brain, like the limbic system, which we have in common with all other creatures, and also the subconscious drives attributable to evolution, to tribalism, to cultural history and the like.

I think Catholicism may be more diverse. — Tom Storm

Absolutely. There's a reactionary element in Catholicism, but also very progressive elements. I only mentioned that, because I happened to read it at the time this thread was posted (although I think he makes a valid point.)

The idea of Jahweh being dependent on humanity for his own development leads to the question: if God is dependent on human beings is God simply a product of the human mind? — Jack Cummins

If the interpretation I put forward earlier is correct, the "human mind" is the result of a condition that predates the appearance of humans. The evolutionary dimension of instincts, whereby new forms of life appear, happens because the "pattern" or image of instincts can change. However that environment is made possible is what is being marked out as "going beyond an anthropomorphic picture." Human reality emerges from another reality. While that is a biological view, it is also an eminently Gnostic perspective. What is startling in Jung's project is that he sees those very different scenes as entangled with each other while also not letting one narrative be absorbed by the other. That separation is "anti-anthropomorphic" in itself. Whatever "transcendent" something that allowed for this potential is not a part of any story we can tell about ourselves or the gods we talk about.

In various Gnostic creation stories, there is a boundary toward which one can never get closer or further away from but it is always introduced as the possibility for what can be talked about. That is not the same kind of boundary Jung is drawing around "physical existence." The models we use to describe natural phenomena are not incorporated (pardon the pun) into the model where humans and "God" are interacting and changing through the interaction. If the "God" we can talk about cannot be identified as the agent that allowed the potential for consciousness to appear at all, that points to something that is not only not human but can barely be gestured at. Any theologian who wants to frame reality so that our experience of the natural world is addressed as a part of the story will naturally be pissed off by such a set up. It is sort of a reversal from other ways the psychological is commonly objected to as a frame for religious experience. In the case of "Victor White, who maintained that we cannot reduce God to images in the human psyche", none of those terms mean what Jung developed them to mean.

However, he does go on to query if there is some underlying force involved in the drama between God and humanity as revealed in the drama between Job and Jahweh, by saying, ' the miracle of reflecting consciousness is so great that one cannot help suspecting an element of meaning to be concealed somewhere within all the biological turmoil.' — Jack Cummins

If the argument I have made about his use of models is correct, this line smacks of finding what he assumed at the beginning. Jung removed the element of meaning from the physical as a point of departure.

I have also found a quote in 'Answer to Job' which suggests that Jahweh changed as a result of interaction with Job. He argued that Jahweh 'raises himself above his earlier primitive level of consciousness by indirectly acknowledging that Job is morally superior to him and that therefore he has to catch up and become human himself' — Jack Cummins

That is interesting. I have always preferred Jung as a teller of stories than an explainer of everything.
You might be interested in reading the Lion and the Ass by Robert Sacks. The conversation between Creator and the Created takes center stage. Wrestling with God has many different iterations.

He was particularly interested in the religious experience, but his ideas have come under some criticism, especially by the theologian Victor White, who maintained that we cannot reduce God to images in the human psyche. — Jack Cummins

That is similar to the criticism I mentioned, from Wolfgang Smith, an advocate of the 'perennial tradition'. He too says that what Jung is exploring is what is known to the various esoteric traditions as the intermediary realm - 'intermediate' between the physical/human and the spiritual realm, in his understanding. I think there might be some truth in that, but it's a very esoteric distinction.

Actually this might be a good place for this graphic, which I think originated with Huston Smith, a scholar of comparitive religion (or possibly Ken Wilber's comments on him).



So what White and Smith both are saying is that Jung's 'theatre of operations' is the second from the centre.

Fundamental to Jung's project was a preference for mystery and incomprehension over reason. — Tom Storm

I don't think that's a fair description. Jung thought of himself as scientific, even though his subject matter was naturally one which was not always amenable to any kind of scientific reduction. I think compared to Freud's blatant scientism, Jung's multifaceted approach was much more truly humanist in scope. I perfectly admit I don't know Jung's writing that well - I've read Man and his Symbols, Memories Dreams and Reflections, and the forwards to Eastern classics. But I think he's an under-rated genius in 20th century arts and sciences, due to his distance from the standard-issue Darwinian materialism which dominates secular culture. I noticed when I was an undergrad the only dept. he was mentioned in was Comparative Religion (never in pyschology, they were too busy pulling habits out of rats.)

they were too busy pulling habits out of rats. — Wayfarer

:clap:
Love that joke!

I failed my very first undergrad essay, in psychology, on the topic of IQ testing. Broadly my answer was along the lines ‘is intelligence something that can be tested?’ Written across the cover sheet when I got it back was ‘F - WRONG DEPARTMENT’. (Incidentally it remained the only essay I failed. )

I can relate to annoying certain instructors with philosophical questions. I didn't major in philosophy, probably because (then as now) I saw it largely in terms of expression of personality. There's something bogus about the academic power dynamic (prof and student, I mean, but maybe not only that), and we both know that certain thinkers are allergic to certain other thinkers. Then, as Hegel writes somewhere, everyone thinks they can do philosophy, that it's nothing, so it's also dicey in that sense. Something technical, however, will get even your philosophical ramblings taken more seriously.

But I think he's an under-rated genius in 20th century arts and sciences, due to his distance from the standard-issue Darwinian materialism which dominates secular culture. I noticed when I was an undergrad the only dept. — Wayfarer

Not wanting to be offensive, but it sometimes sounds to me like you will elevate almost anyone if they share the same 'enemies' as you. If a particular thinker is against what you have determined to be reductionist scientism, or if they hold unverifiable theories - it seems they get an immediate pass, maybe even a high distinction. :razz:

It was the old nun teaching me about the collective unconscious who alerted me to the fact that most of Jung's prose is almost indecipherable (apart from his popular works) and that even Jungians struggle to understand or agree on what he means. Not so much a function of the thoughts as a function of the writing. This has probably rendered Jung mostly harmless as all he is remembered for is some work on dreams and the not very well understood collective unconscious as hawked by Joseph Campbell for so many years and, of course, an influence on the Star Wars cycle.

I didn't major in philosophy, probably because (then as now) I saw it largely in terms of expression of personality. — T H E

Interesting. Can you expand on this a little?

When we lost touch with nature, with the universe, with the clouds, lakes and birds, when we lost touch with all that, the priests came in. Then the superstition, fears and exploitation began. The priest became the mediator between the human and the so-called divine.
~ J. Krishnamurti

Not wanting to be offensive, but it sometimes sounds to me like you will elevate almost anyone if they share the same 'enemies' as you. — Tom Storm

I’ll cop to that.

I don’t idolize Jung, what I said was that I think he’s underrated.

And then Krishnamurti came along and put us all on the street. — A Priest

Is Jung a priest?

And then Krishnamurti came along and put us all on the street.
— A Priest — Wayfarer

:rofl: :rofl:

he was a psychoanalyst

It was the old nun teaching me about the collective unconscious who alerted me to the fact that most of Jung's prose is almost indecipherable (apart from his popular works) and that even Jungians struggle to understand or agree on what he means. Not so much a function of the thoughts as a function of the writing. — Tom Storm

They didn't let a nun – old or not – teach philosophy at my Catholic high school back in the day; maybe because they were less ponderous and more practical expositors than the priests ... :chin:

Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something it must be profound. It is so timid and dislikes going into the water. — The Gay Science, 173

Yeah, Jung is just as guilty of this as Heidegger, who clearly confesses:

Those in the crossing must in the end know what is mistaken by all urging for intelligibility: that every thinking of being, all philosophy, can never be confirmed by ‘facts,’ i.e., by beings. Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy. — Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning), Notes 1936-1938

(Emphasis is mine.)

I should add, as I’ve spoken up in favour of Jung, that if the opportunity came along, I think I would greatly benefit from Jungian analysis, in particular with respect to ‘integrating the shadow’. I’m sure I have some serious learning to do in that area. The problem is, Jungian analysts are very scarce, and extremely expensive, so it’s unlikely to happen, but if the chance came....

Interesting. Can you expand on this a little? — Tom Storm

Sure. For context, I went to school as an older student than most, not because I was a dunce but rather because I was an alienated autodidact, and I was reading and agreeing with stuff like this.

Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Dewey are in agreement that the notion of knowledge of accurate representation, made possible by special mental processes, and intelligible through a general theory of representation, needs to be abandoned. For all three, the notions of "foundations of knowledge" and of philosophy as revolving around the Cartesian attempt to answer the epistemological skeptic are set aside. Further, they set aside the notion of "the mind" common to Descartes, Locke, and Kant — as a special subject of study, located in inner space, containing elements or processes which make knowledge possible. This is not to say that they have alternative "theories of knowledge" or "philosophies of mind." They set aside epistemology and metaphysics as possible disciplines. I say "set aside" rather than "argue against" because their attitude toward the traditional problematic is like the attitude of seventeenth century philosophers toward the scholastic problematic. They do not devote themselves to discovering false propositions or bad arguments in the works of their predecessors (though they occasionally do that too). Rather, they glimpse the possibility of a form of intellectual life in which the vocabulary of philosophical reflection inherited from the seventeenth century would seem as pointless as the thirteenth-century philosophical vocabulary had seemed to the Enlightenment. To assert the possibility of a post-Kantian culture, one in which there is no all-encompassing discipline which legitimizes or grounds the others, is not necessarily to argue against any particular Kantian doctrine, any more than to glimpse the possibility of a culture in which religion either did not exist, or had no connection with science or politics, was necessarily to argue against Aquinas's claim that God's existence can be proved by natural reason. Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Dewey have brought us into a period of "revolutionary" philosophy (in the sense of Kuhn's "revolutionary" science) by introducing new maps of the terrain (viz., of the whole panorama of human activities) which simply do not include those features which previously seemed to dominate. — link

https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/rorty/

In other words, philosophy was dead (but long live philosophy!)

But there's also what I discovered in books as an autodidact, that Russell hated Hegel and Nietzsche, and gave them crude and bogus entries in his History of Western Philosophy. That's the prototype. People take this stuff personally. It's basically religion for atheists (though there are a few theists in the game.) Or the exciting stuff is. For instance, I think Schopenhauer's great. That says as much about me as it does about Schopenhauer. I had a prof who disliked thinker X, the author of the first quote, while I thought thinker X was great. Is it a coincidence that thinker X was a critic of my prof's approach? It was in that class that I learned that the present king of France is bald. But I didn't think much of my prof. He was no dummy, but at the same time he was just another guy who had read some books and formed some opinions about them. Another anecdote: I looked up the work of a teacher whose class I considered taking. Not bad, but not at all beyond the level of the good posts I see by others on this forum, and very much expressing a personality. There are technical realms (like medical ethics or the philosophy of QM) that I've never looked into, so I can't speak about them, and those didn't tempt me in terms of majors. I wanted to talk about Wittgenstein & Hegel & Nietzsche & maybe even Freud and Jung, which seems pretty close to wanting to talk about Jane Austen or Homer. It's hard to get paid for such pleasures. That too was a factor. I had a knack for technical thinking, and a mixture of prudence and vanity led me that way instead. (In another life, I can imagine getting into the right school with the right profs and really enjoying that path, however ultimately personal the whole game is. )

On my atheism point:

A 2014 survey by David Chalmers and David Bourget on nearly 1,000 professional philosophers from 99 leading departments of philosophy shows that 72.8% considered themselves as atheists, 14.6% considered themselves as theist, and 12.6% as something else. — link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#:~:text=A%202014%20survey%20by%20David,and%2012.6%25%20as%20something%20else.

I'm an atheist myself, so I'm not complaining about that. I'm just speculating that the philosophy I like tends to be so personal and entwined with heroic self-image partially because of that.
And you can just imagine how embattled theists must feel.

Tom Storm he was a psychoanalyst — The Opposite

I thought he was a wizard, like Freud.

I'm an atheist myself, so I'm not complaining about that. I'm just speculating that the philosophy I like tends to be so personal and entwined with heroic self-image partially because of that. — T H E

Thank you for that explanation. I relate to much of it and agree for the most part. However, over the years I have found most philosophy laborious and unpleasant to read and, as an atheist, I didn't really see any need for examining any given thinker's subjectivist rantings just because it had made it into the pantheon - endorsed by some, negated by others. Who can tell what is important? I can't. So I have tended to focus on the quotidian and tried to make that as rewarding as possible. What fascinates me on this site are the choices people make and why.

The 'laborious to read' caught my eye. Bad philosophy and maybe even mediocre philosophy is worse than no philosophy. I mean that it's actively annoying and boring, of negative value. I'm also of the opinion that boredom with a book should be trusted. Put it down and find something that grabs you.

For whatever reason, I did take to certain philosophers like a duck to water (Nietzsche.) I have the disease, and the primary symptom is a compulsion to make general and hopefully profound statements about existence. I also took to Freud as a newly minted atheist (at around 18), and I read him 'philosophically,' as a dirty old man stained with experience who cast a dispassionate eye on human nature. The Future of an Illusion. Civilization and its Discontents. It doesn't matter so much to me whether this or that Freudian hypothesis was/is correct. The approach, style, and subject matter were already worth the price of admission. I read his last book first, the one he never finished, the one that summed it all up, The Outline.

Re 'the person' - Cultural differentiation is something that occurs over centuries, individual differentiation over lifetimes. The various depictions of psyche as spirit or soul in religious philosophies are supposedly intended to awaken the subject to the eternally-existent essence (the ātman) - which is 'transpersonal'. — Wayfarer

As you may know, Schopenhauer talks about seeing through the veil of the principle of individuality. Now that I'm on the lookout, I find versions of this idea in many thinkers. Definitely the tone and context vary, and the transpersonal entity isn't always eternal. It might be as fragile as a way of life.

if the opportunity came along, I think I would greatly benefit from Jungian analysis, in particular with respect to ‘integrating the shadow’ — Wayfarer

I think it would be fascinating to talk with a pro, but my default position is that we can't help doing self-analysis after reading psychoanalysts (and I'd count certain philosophers as such.) The 'shadow' was definitely one of the concepts I valued/value in Jung. If persona is mask, then it's all (the wicked stuff) at least dormant in us all.

A link to an article on how Kant and Schopenhauer anticipated Freud’s ideas was posted here some time back. When you think about it, the provenance is fairly obvious.

Regarding therapists - if they’re any good they will show you things about yourself you would never otherwise find out, or at least they will greatly expedite it.

The particular book which @Valentinus and I were discussing by Jung, 'Answer to Job' focuses on the shadow specifically. It looks at it on a collective level, because while integrating the shadow is personal, and relevant in personal level, Jung is concerned about the shadow as a force which is involved as a source of mass destruction. In 'Answer to Job', Jung spoke of the danger of the 'dark side' of God being unleashed, with reference to nuclear weapons. His book was written in the 1950s, and of course, nuclear weapons have become more sophisticated and there are so many ecological threats too.

I spent over 3 years in Jungian analysis, although the therapist did use other psychodynamic techniques. However, I do think that it is possible to work upon understanding the personal shadow based on reading Jung. It is about understanding one's personal demons and avoiding destructive tendencies. However, integrating the shadow is not easy, because there is the danger of integration of the shadow becoming acting out one's shadow. It can be a fine line, which is why therapy is useful in this respect. Nevertheless, awareness of the shadow is probably important because, without awareness of this aspect of the psyche, the shadow functions on an unconscious basis.

I read Answer to Job a long time ago and remember being quite impressed by it. I already liked Job, but Jung gave me new perspectives on that ancient and profound book.

A link to an article on how Kant and Schopenhauer anticipated Freud’s ideas was posted here some time back. When you think about it, the provenance is fairly obvious. — Wayfarer

I agree. Freud was careful not to read too much philosophy as a young student, as I found from his bio. But he did credit Nietzsche with exceptional self-knowledge ('more penetrating knowledge of himself than any man who ever lived or was likely to live').

Something I don't recall seeing in Kant or Schop is anything to do with dream interpretation, slips of the tongue, or free association. I also don't see much of a direct Kantian influence. I think Freud fits in the 'tough minded' category. He constantly reworked theories, had a nose for detail (his case studies are vivid), and had a pessimist's sense of humor.

By Weltanschauung, then, I mean an intellectual construction which gives a unified solution of all the problems of our existence in virtue of a comprehensive hypothesis, a construction, therefore, in which no question is left open and in which everything in which we are interested finds a place. It is easy to see that the possession of such a Weltanschauung is one of the ideal wishes of mankind. When one believes in such a thing, one feels secure in life, one knows what one ought to strive after, and how one ought to organise one’s emotions and interests to the best purpose.

If that is what is meant by a Weltanschauung, then the question is an easy one for psychoanalysis to answer. As a specialised science, a branch of psychology – ‘depth-psychology’ or psychology of the unconscious – it is quite unsuited to form a Weltanschauung of its own; it must accept that of science in general. The scientific Weltanschauung is, however, markedly at variance with our definition. The unified nature of the explanation of the universe is, it is true, accepted by science, but only as a programme whose fulfilment is postponed to the future. Otherwise it is distinguished by negative characteristics, by a limitation to what is, at any given time, knowable, and a categorical rejection of certain elements which are alien to it. It asserts that there is no other source of knowledge of the universe but the intellectual manipulation of carefully verified observations, in fact, what is called research, and that no knowledge can be obtained from revelation, intuition or inspiration. It appears that this way of looking at things came very near to receiving general acceptance during the last century or two. It has been reserved for the present century to raise the objection that such a Weltanschauung is both empty and unsatisfying, that it overlooks all the spiritual demands of man, and all the needs of the human mind.

This objection cannot be too strongly repudiated. It cannot be supported for a moment, for the spirit and the mind are the subject of scientific investigation in exactly the same way as any non-human entities. Psycho-analysis has a peculiar right to speak on behalf of the scientific Weltanschauung in this connection, because it cannot be accused of neglecting the part occupied by the mind in the universe. The contribution of psychoanalysis to science consists precisely in having extended research to the region of the mind. Certainly without such a psychology science would be very incomplete. But if we add to science the investigation of the intellectual and emotional functions of men (and animals), we find that nothing has been altered as regards the general position of science, that there are no new sources of knowledge or methods of research. Intuition and inspiration would be such, if they existed; but they can safely be counted as illusions, as fulfilments of wishes. It is easy to see, moreover, that the qualities which, as we have shown, are expected of a Weltanschauung have a purely emotional basis. Science takes account of the fact that the mind of man creates such demands and is ready to trace their source, but it has not the slightest ground for thinking them justified. On the contrary, it does well to distinguish carefully between illusion (the results of emotional demands of that kind) and knowledge.
— Freud

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/at/freud.htm

Regarding therapists - if they’re any good they will show you things about yourself you would never otherwise find out, or at least they will greatly expedite it. — Wayfarer

I suppose you must be right about a really good one. I prefer the idea of daringly honest friendship.