Just realized Jungian psychology was a cult

[Princess Zucchini]

I was curious to see what Jung's life was like. Well, turns out, he would start out with grooming young, female patients to live on his compound, where he would sleep with them, they'd analyze each other's dreams, he'd steal their ideas if they made him mad, and he lived off his wife's fortune. They all shared some unusual, gnostic-leaning beliefs. Everyone was very intelligent, but otherwise, it was the 70s before the 70s were a thing. Like a bridge between the dandy-era enlightenment and friendly fishing.

 

[Wyote]

Sounds about right for any academic figurehead

 

[Korg]

Link?

 

[SlowUpTake]

Carl Jung: Adulterer, Cruel Father and Archetype from Hell | CJ Grace

Does Carl Jung's nasty character take away some of the value of his work? CJ Grace believes that his archetype and personality theories are vague and simplistic.

www.adultererswife.com

 

[John K]

Some thoughts. There's many a great artist who was weird and had a strange and maybe unpleasant personal life - we still admire and treasure their art. Another is that Jung himself stated that he was driven, and admitted that as a result he hurt others - so do all folks who choose to, or who are forced to follow their star regardless of those around them. This is obviously so with great political and religious leaders, as well as great scientists and doctors.

Jung was definitely a weirdo, maybe out of the same mould as the poet, artist and mystic William Blake. His work sits on the boundaries between psychology, religion / mysticism, and philosophy. As such it is fascinating and there is little quite like it that is so readily accessible to lay folks who are willing to put some effort in. I think it's important to understand that reading his work today is increasingly an archeological experience though - he was one of the pioneers, establishing the foundations of psychiatry from almost nothing. He was one of the first medical men to alleviate the suffering of folks with deep psychosis and he did this by being willing to enter their world of strange symbols with them. But his writings are 60 - 120 years old, and of course are in some respects as outdated as, say, text books on astronomy that old. Nonetheless, for me his most profound insights are bound up with his exploration of unconscious mystical and religious symbols which to him seem to lie at the heart of the human psyche. What Jung attempted to do was to express and explore these in themselves as a natural phenomenon rather than as bound up with actual religious frameworks. He found that this concept was too subtle for many, who mistakenly thought he was treading outside the boundaries of psychological theory and trespassing on religious ground. Mind you, I do wonder if he did end up doing just that ......

He must have been a real nightmare sometimes as a family man, but as often happens with men who have the charisma of greatness he won undying loyalty from his long-suffering wife Emma. She was a genuine hero who helped stabilise the foundations of her husband's clinical and teaching work. It's well worth reading Caterine Clay's biography of Emma, called Labyrinths.

As an aside, I'm personally very strongly opposed to the idea that someone's work should be discredited because of perceived or actual faults in their private life and history. I think that Jung was the sort of person who could come into your life, use you, then move on without looking back when he didn't need you any more. He confessed to this in the footnote to his autobiography. For me that doesn't alter the extraordinary journey of mind-stretching insights that anyone can have by exploring his work, and that of his disciples.

 

[aeon]

Jung and Blake...

Fetch us each a wee dram, and I’ll get the fire going. Yes, the wool blankets. Luna on the hearth, Malcolm on your lap, and a little reading tonight, yes?

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Hyacinth]

Some thoughts. There's many a great artist who was weird and had a strange and maybe unpleasant personal life - we still admire and treasure their art. Another is that Jung himself stated that he was driven, and admitted that as a result he hurt others - so do all folks who choose to, or who are forced to follow their star regardless of those around them. This is obviously so with great political and religious leaders, as well as great scientists and doctors.

Jung was definitely a weirdo, maybe out of the same mould as the poet, artist and mystic William Blake. His work sits on the boundaries between psychology, religion / mysticism, and philosophy. As such it is fascinating and there is little quite like it that is so readily accessible to lay folks who are willing to put some effort in. I think it's important to understand that reading his work today is increasingly an archeological experience though - he was one of the pioneers, establishing the foundations of psychiatry from almost nothing. He was one of the first medical men to alleviate the suffering of folks with deep psychosis and he did this by being willing to enter their world of strange symbols with them. But his writings are 60 - 120 years old, and of course are in some respects as outdated as, say, text books on astronomy that old. Nonetheless, for me his most profound insights are bound up with his exploration of unconscious mystical and religious symbols which to him seem to lie at the heart of the human psyche. What Jung attempted to do was to express and explore these in themselves as a natural phenomenon rather than as bound up with actual religious frameworks. He found that this concept was too subtle for many, who mistakenly thought he was treading outside the boundaries of psychological theory and trespassing on religious ground. Mind you, I do wonder if he did end up doing just that ......

He must have been a real nightmare sometimes as a family man, but as often happens with men who have the charisma of greatness he won undying loyalty from his long-suffering wife Emma. She was a genuine hero who helped stabilise the foundations of her husband's clinical and teaching work. It's well worth reading Caterine Clay's biography of Emma, called Labyrinths.

As an aside, I'm personally very strongly opposed to the idea that someone's work should be discredited because of perceived or actual faults in their private life and history. I think that Jung was the sort of person who could come into your life, use you, then move on without looking back when he didn't need you any more. He confessed to this in the footnote to his autobiography. For me that doesn't alter the extraordinary journey of mind-stretching insights that anyone can have by exploring his work, and that of his disciples.

I agree as everyone is capable of hurting others whether intentionally or unintentionally. It doesn’t discredit the profound effects and influences that they’ve contributed toward society and history as a whole whether to psychology, religion, philosophy, math, or any other significant contributions to the betterment of society. If however they did nothing to help and instead ONLY hurt like Hitler did then they’ll still be remembered but remembered for what could go so wrong if all they did is solely focus on control versus contributing anything of any real value or substance to better society. It is only when evil is taken too far that they’re used as an example of what not to do versus what to do as the path of evil always begins at first with good intentions until the good eventually becomes twisted inside their minds to begin to serve their own interests of wealth and power. That’s when their downward path begins to quickly justify things that which cannot be justified or forgotten. When ppl do forget then we are doomed to repeat history until we learn our lesson.

 

[John K]

I agree as everyone is capable of hurting others whether intentionally or unintentionally. It doesn’t discredit the profound effects and influences that they’ve contributed toward society and history as a whole whether to psychology, religion, philosophy, math, or any other significant contributions to the betterment of society. If however they did nothing to help and instead ONLY hurt like Hitler did then they’ll still be remembered but remembered for what could go so wrong if all they did is solely focus on control versus contributing anything of any real value or substance to better society. It is only when evil is taken too far that they’re used as an example of what not to do versus what to do as the path of evil always begins at first with good intentions until the good eventually becomes twisted inside their minds to begin to serve their own interests of wealth and power. That’s when their downward path begins to quickly justify things that which cannot be justified or forgotten. When ppl do forget then we are doomed to repeat history until we learn our lesson.

i agree. I think the modern cult of polarised thinking is extremely damaging. Ambiguity and ambivalence are very much a part of the world and to reject the sum total of whoever is morally ambiguous is to cut ourselves off from reality. I guess this is my INFJ nature - I’d rather see such than judge it.

The artist Michelangelo Caravaggio is a classic example. He was a violent man who committed murder, but created some of the world’s greatest art. Not just great in itself but also broke the mould of then contemporary art which lead to new aesthetic insights and techniques. The moral and rational attitude towards him is to celebrate his achievements while deploring his behaviour. The strange thing is that maybe his artistic mastery would not have been if he were not also the criminal. I feel it’s important that this ambiguity is left unresolved - his art should not be judged naively in the context of his behaviour, which of course I would condemn.

 

[Hyacinth]

i agree. I think the modern cult of polarised thinking is extremely damaging. Ambiguity and ambivalence are very much a part of the world and to reject the sum total of whoever is morally ambiguous is to cut ourselves off from reality. I guess this is my INFJ nature - I’d rather see such than judge it.

The artist Michelangelo Caravaggio is a classic example. He was a violent man who committed murder, but created some of the world’s greatest art. Not just great in itself but also broke the mould of then contemporary art which lead to new aesthetic insights and techniques. The moral and rational attitude towards him is to celebrate his achievements while deploring his behaviour. The strange thing is that maybe his artistic mastery would not have been if he were not also the criminal. I feel it’s important that this ambiguity is left unresolved - his art should not be judged naively in the context of his behaviour, which of course I would condemn.

I agree

 

[SlowUpTake]

 

[Princess Zucchini]

He groomed kids, but it's okay. Thanks, I've learned to be not-so-modern, definitely my problem.

 

[Princess Zucchini]

Woody, just bang another minor, maybe then, almost there, maybe just a little more realted this time

 

[Princess Zucchini]

Jim Jones made some great strides in equality.

 

[ComfortablyNumb]

I was curious to see what Jung's life was like. Well, turns out, he would start out with grooming young, female patients to live on his compound, where he would sleep with them, they'd analyze each other's dreams, he'd steal their ideas if they made him mad, and he lived off his wife's fortune. They all shared some unusual, gnostic-leaning beliefs. Everyone was very intelligent, but otherwise, it was the 70s before the 70s were a thing. Like a bridge between the dandy-era enlightenment and friendly fishing.

Three words: Better than Freud.

In a nutshell, (no pun intended), his Oedipus Complex theory taught the world that boys secretly wanted to have a sexual relationship with their mother and off their father. Premeditated revenge. Girls...same, with roles reversed. Then he taught is that we are born broken, with a condition I'll call Sigmund Freud deficiency syndrome. That's the definition of a full-fledged malignant narcissistic psychopath. Have you ever noticed that modern Freudian psychstrists need to see a psychiatrist?

Then his nephew, Edward Bernays, used Uncle Sigmund's manipulative work inhuman behavior to become the world's most influencial propagandist in history, (disguised as marketing). Every feminist should be appalled.
Bernays' first break into mainstream marketing was consuluting for Lucky Strike, Inc. in 1929. The tobacco industry had a problem on their hands. The market for tobacco sales to men was saturated. They needed new customers.

At the time, only 12% of women smoked tobacco. There was a social stigma that women who smoked were whores and prostitutes, which back then was largely true.

Now, a normal person would try to help the 12% kick the habit, tobacco and prostitution, so those women could regain their dignity and self-worth and join the other 88% of women to fight for real reforms. But there's no money in doing that.

Bernays $aw a golden opportunity and created the "Torches of Freedom" campaign, kicked off by a women's march in NYC comple with printed signs and a Lucky Strike cig in every participant women's hand.

The Freud family's contribution to society:
Sigmund's projection of his perverted childhood fantasy and lung cancer.

Bernays went on to work for other major corporations' propaganda.. pardon me....marketing campaigns. Another blow to women. He made wealthy male corporate oligarchs even wealthier.

 

[Princess Zucchini]

Three words: Better than Freud.

In a nutshell, (no pun intended), his Oedipus Complex theory taught the world that boys secretly wanted to have a sexual relationship with their mother and off their father. Premeditated revenge. Girls...same, with roles reversed. Then he taught is that we are born broken, with a condition I'll call Sigmund Freud deficiency syndrome. That's the definition of a full-fledged malignant narcissistic psychopath. Have you ever noticed that modern Freudian psychstrists need to see a psychiatrist?

Then his nephew, Edward Bernays, used Uncle Sigmund's manipulative work inhuman behavior to become the world's most influencial propagandist in history, (disguised as marketing). Every feminist should be appalled.
Bernays' first break into mainstream marketing was consuluting for Lucky Strike, Inc. in 1929. The tobacco industry had a problem on their hands. The market for tobacco sales to men was saturated. They needed new customers.

At the time, only 12% of women smoked tobacco. There was a social stigma that women who smoked were whores and prostitutes, which back then was largely true.

Now, a normal person would try to help the 12% kick the habit, tobacco and prostitution, so those women could regain their dignity and self-worth and join the other 88% of women to fight for real reforms. But there's no money in doing that.

Bernays $aw a golden opportunity and created the "Torches of Freedom" campaign, kicked off by a women's march in NYC comple with printed signs and a Lucky Strike cig in every participant women's hand.

The Freud family's contribution to society:
Sigmund's projection of his perverted childhood fantasy and lung cancer.

Bernays went on to work for other major corporations' propaganda.. pardon me....marketing campaigns. Another blow to women. He made wealthy male corporate oligarchs even wealthier.

Can you not sit with both admiring someone and admitting they were evil and also admitting that you probably shouldn't admire them but do? He was friends with Freud, btw. I'm well aware that all of this is a vice of mine.