Thread: Modern day discussions of Carl Jung .. any references ?

I am looking for books .. video clips .. podcast anything where modern day scientist look back and critique the ideas of Carl Jung.

Any references ?

Feel free to offer your views of the man's work if it interest you.

MB ..

Jung? In a nutshell, his ideas about the nature of mind, consciousness, and dreaming are as archaic as Freud's. Neither Jung nor Freud, unfortunately, had the advantage or insight which contemporary technologies have provided in brain study. If they had, they might have reached less convoluted, more cogent conclusions regardng the true nature of our mental construct--in my opinion.

The consensus of derision for Jung and Freud is curious. It's like if modern biologists laugh at Darwin's archaic speculations, because silly Darwin didn't understand evolution. I think the problem is that the best memes get internalized, and then due credit is lost. Speaking of memes, does one suppose we might someday sneer at Dawkins' convoluted & incogent notions about memes?

The dictinction between Darwin and the ideas of Jung and Freud is that Darwin was generally right while the opposit is true for many of Jung and Freud's notions. If you're going to take the opposite of my every post, Pong, you should probably give more thought to your analogies.

Sorry MohaveBiologist for ignoring your question. All I can offer is (IMHO) the greatest living seed of Jung's ideas, a children's book as famous as it is notorious: Where the Wild Things Are. I had no hesitation reading this to my 4-year-old and enjoy it well myself. The book contains vitamins no child should be deprived of.

Thanks for both your post ... the book suggestion looks very interesting .. I also have young kids.

DrmDoc : What fundemental ideas of Freud or Jung were completely wrong ?

Speaking of memes, does one suppose we might someday sneer at Dawkins' convoluted & incogent notions about memes?

When I was in college I don't think I ever heard the word "meme" :-D

Sounds like a computer geeky term .. I think we called it social evolution more or less. I have been listening to a lot of Dawkin's lately he is certainly sold on the idea of an absolute truth. I don't lean that way much anymore.

MB ...

Originally Posted by MohaveBiologist

What fundemental ideas of Freud or Jung were completely wrong?

Although numerous, the ideas of Freud most dismaying to me are all those relating to the nature of dreams and dreaming other than his seminole idea that relates dreaming to the unconscious mind. Also, I'm not particularly fond of his id/ego ideas. Much of what Freud believed about our mental construct was rooted in his observations of the mentally ill. Ideas based on imperfect examples of the mind are invariably representative of those imperfections rather than the mind as a whole.

Jung, who Freud once considered his heir apparent, erred by allowing the influence of his religious upbring into his work. In a letter to a colleague, Jung wrote, "What the religious man calls God is what the scientific intellect calls the collective unconscious." Jung also wrote, "Man's vital energy or libido is the divine pneuma alright, and it was this conviction which it was my secret purpose to bring into the vicinity of my colleagues' understanding." This is particularly suggested by his collective unconscious postulate. His ideas regarding the nature of dreaming are convoluted and misguiding, particularly Jung's anima/animus ideas. Unfortunately, Jung's dreamwork notions have become a cottage industry that excites somewhat religious fervor among his followers.

Galileo said, "These grand personages who set out to discover the great truth and never quite find it, give me a pain...They can't find it because they're always looking in the wrong place." I believe this was also true for Jung and Freud, they were looking for truth through the wrong medium.

Books by Jung I can recommend are:
Man and His Symbols.
Memories, Dreams, Reflections.
The intro to WJ Evans-Wentz's 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead', or Bardo Thodel.
Ok, it's all a bit old fashioned, but he writing at a time when these ideas were very real, and who's to argue?

Originally Posted by Pong

Speaking of memes, does one suppose we might someday sneer at Dawkins' convoluted & incogent notions about memes?

I think we might, as not too many people seem to have followed up his idea, although I can think of Susan Blackmore's book 'The Meme Machine', which I have read, but remained unconvinced. There is another called 'The Selfish Meme', (Kate Distin), but I have not seen it. I think the real answer could simply be mimicry, rather than the evolution of relicating ideas. But again, who's to argue right now.