I'd love to talk about Jung and his ideas. The link is not working for me however. Perhaps you could share a particular idea of Jung you'd like to discuss? Or maybe summarize the conclusion of the video?

I will engage in discussions about Jung at some point, but busy today. I created a thread on Jung's ideas on God a few weeks ago, which you can find if you scroll back a few pages. You may not be interested in his ideas on religion but my discussion goes into some ideas relevant to the self, including the shadow. I actually wrote a dissertation on his idea of the shadow as part of my studies at university.

I definitely think that you need to suggest an area of thought, or a specific question in addition to the video, as Jung's idea of the self is wide, because he wrote volumes on the subject. As you are new to the forum, I wish you all the best. I will catch up with your thread when I have a moment.

the self is the totality. What about the unconscious? I remember a quote from him: until you do not make the unconscious conscious, it will guide your life and you will call it fate

Personally, I think that one of the central ideas of his idea of self which is particularly relevant to the philosophy of self is the collective unconscious. It is an idea which some may regard as rather abstract.( I am afraid that I am not able to give a quote to define it at this moment because I am not indoors with my books). However, the concept of the collective unconscious is a key aspect of his psychology, because the personal and collective unconscious are linked, as apparent in dreams.

His underlying understanding of self is definitely about individuation, which is about making the unconscious more conscious. This involves greater awareness of repressed aspects of consciousness, which are viewed as inferior, within the socialisation process. That is usually the shadow. In this way people gain greater awareness of opposites in the psyche: good and evil, as well as men becoming more conscious of the feminine, and women of the masculine as projected onto others in relationships, or within their own psychology. Apart from that his model incorporates the ideal of people gaining fuller self integration through the four aspects of feeling, reason, sensations and intuition.

Edit- I was writing outside and I realise now that you did not create the thread.


I wrote thid response to Alexandros and the later one as if he was the creator of the thread, so I apologise for any misunderstanding of intent. So, I have updated this as a result.

may I dissent in one point? The collective unconscious is not about what is repressed, that's the personal one. The collective unconscious is a psychic layer of old ages whose content is common to all. Gaining awareness of collective unconscious is not about repressed aspects. I think that those archetypes like the shadow are pretty descriptive of frecuent forms of its various manifestations.

I will give you a quick reply because I am still outside, but can follow it further later if you are interested. Jung's ideas which may be described in some psychology books focus on the integration of opposites in the personal life. However, if you look into the larger body of his writings, especially 'Answer to Job', he spoke he spoke in depth about what is repressed on a collective level. He looks at the way in which striving for perfection in the development of Judaeo-Christian culture society, has been at the cost of a repression of the capacity for collective evil, as a shadow. He sees this as an unconscious aspect underlying the development of nuclear weapons, and the power which this poses for humanity, as the potential for mass destruction.

yes I am aware of that. I wanted to point out that the process of awareness of the unconscious not only implies repressed aspects. That's the vision of Freud. Regarding evil, not only the shadow is responsible, as far as I understand, the others can also develp into negative complexes

This idea of unconscious has really led the understanding of human nature astray for all too long, though digging into it has been very lucrative for psychotherapists.

There are learned habits and habits we are learning. You don't need to dig a mile deep and pay someone to understand your unhealthy habits. All you need is to become aware that they are unhealthy, and try to replace them. However, habits once formed are darn difficult to change.

As for the collective unconscious, yes, there are species habits, formed over eons (e.g. breathing) and which we all share as a species morphic field.

Yes, a lot of money has been made by therapists who have peddled worldviews and 'therapeutic' ideas with not a lot of evidence to support the efficacy of their practices.

Jung's ideas have always been popular with artists and New Agers because they are romantic and dramatic and promise to unite human experience through myth. The entire Star Wars series was based around Jung's archetypes as interpreted by Joseph Campbell in Hero with a Thousand Faces. Some people seem to get a lot out of seeing the world through a Jungian lens and it's worth trying to understand this better.

The eye-opener for me was when I discussed Jung with Jung psychotherapists, none of them could really discuss his ideas and .. none of them used any of techniques. They just talk to people. Nice living.

His text is easily available. Please quote some.

unconscious has not led astray, you rather mean psychoanalysis as therapy. There i completely agree, there are better methods of habit correction without the long treatment of psychoanalysis. Regarding habits, that is not all it is. There are instincts and tendencies. I think Jung did well modelling the spirit with such concepts, sometimes misunderstood. Collective unconscious is not about species habits, but about instincts and the forms those intincts take.

new age and other movements and people take these kind of concepts as they want. Many saw the collective unconscious as a collective soul. It's just popular interpretation. Nowadays everyone talks about Schrödinger's cat having no clue about what it means and arriving to stupid conclusions.

You seem to be querying about people who see the world better through seeing life from a Jungian perspective. I would say that I found his writings more applicable to understanding life, than most of the other psychologists. I discovered him, alongside Freud, when I was about 16, and what I found particularly helpful was his approach to the symbolic dimensions of life, and this for understanding questions underlying religion.

I am aware that many dismiss Jung's ideas and, of course, I read many philosophers and psychological approaches. However, I still think that I rank Jung as probably my own mentor for helping me to think about life. Obviously, that is just my own subjective experience, but I do still believe that he makes an important contribution to psychology and philosophy.

:up:

There are instincts and tendencies — Alexandros

Instincts is a word. When viewed from a specific philosophers'/energetic/spiritual perspective, it is possible to explain instincts as habits, both at a collective and individual level. Briefly, just view instincts as formed memory behavioral wave patterns. In this manner, instincts are no different than any other behavioral pattern, albeit much older, and therefore much, much more difficult to change.

You shouldn’t be too quick too throw away jung. I think he had an iq of 200.

The shadow aspect is dead on and is still relevant.
The archetypes are great. I mean common. The fool, the hero, the flood. The tyrant. The wise king. All patterns of human potential.

When viewed from a specific philosophers'/energetic/spiritual perspective, it is possible to explain instincts as habits — MondoR

You have that quite wrong. If one is to accept the idea of instincts, it means there are these structures of behavior or possibilities of behavior that you are born into.

If that necessity is something you object to upon principle, then just object and don't translate the idea into something else.

You have that quite wrong. If one is to accept the idea of instincts, it means there are these structures of behavior or possibilities of behavior that you are born into. — Valentinus

Correct. Jung avoided the obvious explanation. Probably had to.

You shouldn’t be too quick too throw away jung. I think he had an iq of 200. — Caleb Mercado

He had some interesting ideas. However, they are disheveled, without cohesiveness. He went wrong when he turned out into a business. Money always corrupts.

I don't recognize my comment in your reply.

I like those two ideas though. I think they are relevant today. I think it’s like freud. They don’t separate the good from the bad. And then dismiss most of his thinking.

I quoted you.

I like those two ideas though. I think they are relevant today. — Caleb Mercado

They are interesting as a popular reference point for discussion. However, as a cohesive description of the nature of the human experience, they are wanting. Lots of dots with no connections. I short book that tightly and concisely explained his ideas would have be nice, but it probably wasn't possible.

I know what I said.
Your reading it is not information.

We all play out the archetypes though. It’s like a representation on how humans act. Like we know that beavers build dams. We have used the archetypes to represent our potential modes of being. The hero being of great importance. The tyrant and the wise king as a representation of society.

It might not be perfect but it still works. We go too the movie not to usually see the world as such. And we still understand it. But i get your point

that's the point and jung's is a model. Many misunderstood him as being mystical. There are different uses of the word spirit. Regarding instincts, more accurately would be them becoming habits, not being. They can also not become habits and take forms in the psychic accessible world through symbology and culture, as he extensively exemplified

Many misunderstood him as being mystical. — Alexandros

One has to go to places that are "scientifically" unacceptable in order to understand the nature of Life. Science moves in the direction of organizing material, while life is that what organizes the material. The idea that a human is a "computer", illustrates how daffy and wrongheaded science has become. People like Jung have to walk the fine line between honesty and acceptability. However, in one of his guys 1957 BBC interview he says the psyche is not confined to time and space, which is quite obvious to anyone who dreams.

The question of whether Jung was a mystic is one that has been debated a lot by many writers. He disliked the idea being applied to himself. Part of the complexity of the question is because Jung wrote so much and, from different angles. He did contextualise his thinking in relation to instincts, but, in many ways, also within Western and Eastern ideas of religion. Personally, I can see why some people see him as a mystic, but I prefer not to put him in a neat box, because he was a very diverse thinker.