Freud or Jung?

[jwmorrice]

Re: Re: Re: Freud or Jung?

I would agree that Bush is a Freudian, but would not conclude that he will lose the election. Freud has, so far, won the day over Jung. Although much of Freud is now discounted, very little of Jung is in the mainstream.

Bush a Freudian? Well, let's not get insulting here!

You're right that Jung has fallen outside the mainstream. He seemed to lose his empirical focus and get caught up in various mystical writings. Even the Jungian movement has fractured over time. You have your classical Jungians plus two other schools whose defining focus I now forget. A very good book on the subject is "Jung and the Post Jungians" by Andrew Samuels.

jwm

 

[banshie]

Re: Re: Freud or Jung?

Freud was rather pessimistic about a lot of things, e.g. therapy, America, people in general, etc. Or perhaps, just realistic? jwm

Agreed. But being realistic does not necessarily get you anywhere. It has been said that people suffering (mild) depression have a more accurate view of reality, and that "normal" people are more optimistic than the facts dictate. But depression (although it can be useful) does not lead to action, and tends to keep one stuck. I know this from personal experience.

This is not to say that being a pollyanna, where everything is wonderful, is very useful either. If a train is bearing down on you, it's a good idea to jump off the tracks! It's just that I believe a tendency towards optimism is more productive than pessimism.

 

[jwmorrice]

Jung certainly was full of Eros, and I would imagine enjoyed a good fuck. He had more than one long term mistress. He was open with his wife about these, and in fact insisted on having one of them come for dinner with the family! Wish I had his balls!

Freud seemed to lose his sex drive rather early in life. However, there have long been rumours that he had an affair with his sister-in-law.

He also analysed his daughter Anna. Now that must have lead to some interesting sessions!

jwm

 

[jwmorrice]

Re: Re: Re: Freud or Jung?

...I believe a tendency towards optimism is more productive than pessimism.

I think you're right although it must be said that Freud had a temendously productive life. And many others too in this world have had a depressive temperment and yet done much with their lives. Having said that, thank god for Wellbutrin!

jwm

 

[banshie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Freud or Jung?

Bush a Freudian? Well, let's not get insulting here!

You're right that Jung has fallen outside the mainstream. He seemed to lose his empirical focus and get caught up in various mystical writings. Even the Jungian movement has fractured over time. You have your classical Jungians plus two other schools whose defining focus I now forget. A very good book on the subject is "Jung and the Post Jungians" by Andrew Samuels.

jwm

It happens all over. It's important, for me anyway, to stay away from "schools". When I read Jung, or anyone else, I take what is useful and discount the rest. If we throw out the "baby with the bathwater", then we lose whatever contribution somebody has made. For me, the "good" stuff in Jung outweighes the "good" stuff in Freud's work. Which is not to say I have read enough of either to make that judgement!

As to Jung's "mystical writings", I believe some of these to be his greatest contributions. He viewed everything as a potential vehicle to explore the unconscious. He did not, IMO, believe in mysticism, but was interested in what it could tell us about the human psyche.

As an example, I have played with the "I Ching" a number of times. Do I believe that some mystical force is giving me direction? No. But I do find it to be a useful way to access the unconscious, much like the intrepretation of dreams.

 

[jwmorrice]

He was disturbed when Freud asked him to promise to make this into dogma. This was what led to Jung's split with Freud. (See "Memories, Dreams, Reflections".)

Freud was a child of the enlightenment. He wanted his libido theory to be a bulwark against "the black mud tide of occultism". He wasn't very happy with religion in general. He wrote against it in "The Future of an Illusion".

It's perhaps amusing then, that my signature quote comes from his correspondence with a Protestant minister and psychoanalyst, Oskar Pfister.

jwm

 

[banshie]

Freud ..wasn't very happy with religion in general.

Freud was an atheist. Jung was quite religious, and very spiritual. So, if I had given it any thought when I was younger (which I didn't), Freud would probably have captured my attention more. I am not religious at all, but as I have aged I have become very interested in the spiritual. Perhaps this is the chief reason why Jung appeals to me now.

 

[jwmorrice]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Freud or Jung?

It happens all over. It's important, for me anyway, to stay away from "schools". When I read Jung, or anyone else, I take what is useful and discount the rest. If we throw out the "baby with the bathwater", then we lose whatever contribution somebody has made. For me, the "good" stuff in Jung outweighes the "good" stuff in Freud's work. Which is not to say I have read enough of either to make that judgement!

As to Jung's "mystical writings", I believe some of these to be his greatest contributions. He viewed everything as a potential vehicle to explore the unconscious. He did not, IMO, believe in mysticism, but was interested in what it could tell us about the human psyche.

As an example, I have played with the "I Ching" a number of times. Do I believe that some mystical force is giving me direction? No. But I do find it to be a useful way to access the unconscious, much like the intrepretation of dreams.

Yes, the splitting of psychoanalysis or analytical psychology into various schools was most unfortunate if one takes the perspective of cherry-picking. Obviously, no one person or no one movement has a monopoly on the truth.

However, from another perspective, it was a good thing. Combatants were forced to be rigorous in their logic and coherent in their theory making.

For me, the unfortunate aspect of the psychoanalytic wars was the damage done to the reputations and careers of individuals. But, it happened again and again and again.

One thing that I liked about Jung was that he was somewhat open minded about the virtues and strengths of the two main opposing movements, the Adlerians and the Freudians. He would refer some patients to each.

jwm

 

[jwmorrice]

Re: Re: Freud or Jung?

so what you are saying is that Bush as a Freudite, will lose the election?

For those who have an interest in Bush and psychoanalysis, there's the book, 'Bush on the Couch' by Justin Frank. See http://www.larouchepub.com/other/interviews/2004/3133dr_justin_frank.html for an interview with the good doctor.

jwm

 

[shack]

I like the Woody Allen school of thought.

There are two types of people in this world, the horrible and the miserable.

The horrible are the terminally ill, permanently paralyzed, deformed, insane, etc., etc.

The miserable are everyone else.

Now there's a pessimist's pessimist.

 

[banshie]

shack

Just a restatement of the Buddha - "Life is Suffering".