I meant to reply to Devac's comment when I had time, but he has since deleted it, so I'm replying to you but really for his sake. You really want to start with secondary sources to follow Jung. Behind the scenes he was very interested in mysticism, religion, and magic, but, good scientist that he was, he also didn't believe in the supernatural. His work on the collective unconscious and active imagination was inspired by a experiences he had during a nervous breakdown -- funny enough, hypnagogic visions, which was what I was thinking of when I suggest that to mike. He wrote an account of them in the Red Book, which was only published recently. The collective unconscious started as a theory of why his dreams resembled mythology and accounts of mystics' visionary experiences, and later his theories of archetypes evolved though his interest in alchemy, seeing the symbolic language of alchemy as describing psychological processes being projected on the external world. Because he was worried about his reputation as a scientist he didn't want to talk about that stuff, there really being no way you can talk about alchemy in a scientific context without sounding like a crackpot, so he danced around what motivated his theories until late in life and his writings are hard to follow without (more than) a little context. Jung is in a funny place now. As a psychologist, he's regarded as a pseudoscientist, and rightly so because his theories aren't falsifiable. There are still clinical psychologist and counselors who use his theories, and reputable programs that will train them to, and they're justified because there's enough evidence that they help people even if their theoretical basis is shaky. He also inspired people interested in the esoteric to look at it in psychological terms, so they can play with their tarot cards or whatever if that works for them without feeling like moonbats or obliged to become a moonbat, which can be seen as good or bad depending on where you live and how many people have told you you're, like, such a Gemini lately, but has probably been a positive on the whole.
Thanks for your reply to Devac. I would have babbled something about dream symbolism, attics (imagination), basements and tunnels (the subconscious, the shadow), blah blah. I wasn't aware of the background to Jung's theories. I'll definitely look into it more. I preferred him to Freud, probably because I loved the symbolism - and the notion of a universal common human experience. I used to apply Jung's allegorical journey to my reading of Tarot cards, back when I was a moonbat, but in truth, the only thing I believed in was my own scepticism. bfv how did you get to Jung? through music lyrics, or through some other means?
I worked with a guy who had been a Jungian analyst back in the 60s or 70s before becoming a programmer. He went off on the best tangents. I probably shouldn't have said "moonbat," it's just awfully convenient shorthand. I've cited occultists in threads about skepticism twice in the last month. Through comics and music I picked up a taste for that stuff myself, though I've never been a believer.
I like the term "moonbat" although some would surely find it offensive. I will use it the term in respectful silence when a certain close relative says she prefers to work with her acupuncturist and take Chinese medicine rather than getting an ultrasound or medical diagnosis for heavy post-menopausal vaginal bleeding. Argue with me hubski, I am always interested in being righted. Another friend uses the phrase "Here's where our world views diverge," when moonbattology is proferred. I should use that phrase myself.
I would not mind that, really. I mean, the moment where I would be all snooty on other people for waffling it's the moment where I would have to be hospitalized for a ruptured hypocrite gland ;). Most of the time I try to encourage that to be honest. Plus I have already explained in a post to bfv about the reasons for comment removal, but that's nothing personal or against anyone in particular. More directed at you lil: how did you found out Jung? What's the appeal of symbolism? At least aside of being an abstraction layer as seen in maths, that's my view of the subject. Believe or not, but I have discovered meditation in a broader, non-Buddhist, sense less than half a year ago. Anything mystical that was not Greek, Roman or Norse mythology is a pretty much an uncharted territory for me.I would have babbled something about dream symbolism, attics (imagination), basements and tunnels (the subconscious, the shadow), blah blah.
No snark. I wrote above: The appeal of symbolism is that it's a way of looking at one thing to mean both what it means concretely and also what it means symbolically. In this way, we take The Wizard of Oz (or any journey story) as both a story about a girl trying to get back to Kansas and also a story about a symbolic journey - the journey that perhaps we all are on. Just as a hero sets out on a journey in search of the holy grail or the golden fleece or the broomstick of the wicked witch of the west, we are the heros in our own myths and we are in search of what we are in search of. Jungians might call that integration of our inner and outer selves. Americans might call it the pursuit of happiness. As we follow the journey of a story, there is also a symbolic journey going on. The hero has tests or trials and has to emerge on the other side intact - bruised, battered, but made strong and wise by confidence, courage, and commitment. The appeal of symbolism is that it gives a story the possibility of universal applications. We don't really know what the symbolism means, but we can imagine that since Noah's ark is rudderless, a human cannot steer it. It will go where it has to go blown about by the sea and wind. Like our lives. If you get my circuitous drift.I used to apply Jung's allegorical journey to my reading of Tarot cards, back when I was a moonbat, but in truth, the only thing I believed in was my own scepticism.
Thanks! I will need to ponder a bit on what you have said here, but it does sound very intriguing indeed! Could you recommend some good secondary sources that don't require psychology/philosophy major to follow? I know that this is probably a rather tall order, but I would not be myself if not asking this. I'm not against getting some background in the field anyway, contrary to that I would like to actually get more exposed to humanities. I would be perfectly OK with you telling me to binge Psych portal at Wikipedia for a month, but some guidebook would be much appreciated :D. To clarify deletion: I have actually removed it because I wanted to fix the wording since I got this sudden feeling that everyone and their mother will hawk at me for being an ignorant and dismissive boob… because of the wording. As quite usual turn of events, much to my dismay but not without my fault in some cases.
The Very Short Introduction books are always good for things completely new to you.