Oh My Jung - It is BEAUTIFUL

[BigApplePi]

@TimeAsylums. Fine work but I just noticed this thread and have read only the O.P. unfortunately. Some comments.

Chapter Five:

I. The Attitudes

Jung's well-known distinction between the basic attitudes of extraversion and introversion constitutes one dimension for his system of classification. In order to understand the full significance of these key terms, it is necessary to distinguish between two other words, objective and subjective. Objective refers to the world that lies outside of and surrounds the person; a world of people and things, of customs and conventions, of political, economic, and social institutions, and of physical conditions. This objective world is referred to as the environment, the surroundings, or external reality. Subjective designates the inner and private world of the psyche. It is private because it is not directly observable by outsiders. In fact, it is so private that it is not even always directly accessible to the conscious mind.

I guess the dividing line is whether we are inside or outside the human being that is being judged. That seems to be a very clear dividing line.

page 99:
Thinking consists of connecting ideas with each other in order to arrive at a general concept or a solution to a problem. It is an intellectual function that seeks to understand things.
Feeling is an evaluative function; it either accepts or rejects an idea on the basis of whether the idea arouses a pleasant or unpleasant feeling.
Thinking and feeling are said to be rational functions because they both require an act of judgement. In thinking, one makes judgements as to whether there is a true connection between two or more ideas. In feeling, one makes judgements as to whether an idea is pleasing or distasteful, beautiful or ugly, exciting or dull.
Sensation is sense perception which comprises all conscious experiences produced by stimulation of the sense organs.
Intuition is like sensation in being an experience which is immediately given rather than produced as a result of thought or feeling. No judgement is necessary. Intuition differs from sensation because the person who has an intuition does not know where it came from or how it originated.
Sensation and intuition are said to be irrational functions because they require no reason. They are mental states that evolve from the flux of stimuli acting upon the individual. This flux lacks direction or intentionality; it has no aim as thinking and feeling do. What one senses is contingent upon the stimuli that are present. What one feels in ones bones depends upon unknown stimuli. Jung does not mean by irrational that which is contrary to reason. Sensation and intuition simply have nothing to do with reason. They are nonrational and nonjudgmental.
Jung defined the four functions very succinctly, as follows: "These four functional types correspond to the obvious means by which consciousness obtains its orientation to experience. Sensation tells us that something exists; thinking tells you what it is; feeling tells you whether it is agreeable or not; and intuition tells you whence it comes and where it is going" (Man and His Symbols, 1964, p. 61)

I will add or differ with the above. A person using intuition can know where it came from. Just not at the same time. Thought can uncover the source at least in outline.

Too bad about calling sensation and intuition "irrational" functions. Better would be "arational" (new word) or as stated, "non-rational."

"This flux lacks direction or intentionality; it has no aim as thinking and feeling do."
This I disagree with and is the reason for my making this post. Both sensation and intuition have direction and intentionality. It's just the the direction is outward expansion or inward focus as opposed to a direction on the compass. Think of a balloon. Intentionality exists if only because one wishes to "do something" with their sensation or intuition. That something is to increase or decrease it. Intuition and sensation are not dead meat.

 

[TimeAsylums]

BAP, I have already been over most of what you have stated in other places (and here), since you only read the OP, I'm sure you'll understand that this was months ago, so I'm not going to bother readdressing these issues.

Anyway, it's not 'bad' that Jung used the terms irrational and rational, they were his definitions, and have only changed over time to suit modern/popular psychology. So applying those to his works isn't correct, but using his original definitions works.

 

[PmjPmj]

Great thread, though the information overload has fried my poor tertiary Ti

Oh, and I voted for the option at the bottom of the poll; I've read quite a bit, but not as much as I'd like.

 

[TimeAsylums]

This is something I have pondered for quite some time.

To sum it up:...Introversion is distinguished by general tension, intensive primary function, and a correspondingly long secondary function. Extroversion is characterized by general relaxation, weak primary function, and a correspondingly short secondary function.

In the preceding ten pages, Jung is referencing Otto Gross (he references many other psychologists/philosophers in the book), and how they both agree that for Introverts, it is possible that it is easier for them to develop their auxiliary as opposed to extraverts, due to the lack of introverted attention.

Not saying it's true or anything, just putting it out there.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Gross :

Carl Jung claimed his entire worldview changed when he attempted to analyse Gross and partially had the tables turned on him.

Edit:

The reason I believe I would be able to justify this claim, is because, elsewhere we have discussed how the introverted functions are far more "intense" than the extroverted functions. That is, the I functions are for more "narrower" and thus "deeper" than the very "general" extroverted functions. Because the Introvert will have a far more "intense and intensive" dominant function versus the extroverts not as much psychological intensiveness, this leads to them calling the extroverts secondary function "short" because it requires that intenseness and the introverts secondary function "long" because they can extravert it... again, unsure about this, just theoretical reasoning about it.

 

[OldCoyote]

@TimeAsylums- You got the red book?

I like Jung's mystical side-- From the Gnostic Seven Sermons to the dead.

Spoiler

Sermo I

The dead came back from Jerusalem, where they found not what they sought. They prayed me let them in and besought my word, and thus I began my teaching.

Harken: I begin with nothingness. Nothingness is the same as fullness. In infinity full is no better than empty. Nothingness is both empty and full. As well might ye say anything else of nothingness, as for instance, white is it, or black, or again, it is not, or it is. A thing that is infinite and eternal hath no qualities, since it hath all qualities.

This nothingness or fullness we name the PLEROMA. Therein both thinking and being cease, since the eternal and infinite possess no qualities. In it no being is, for he then would be distinct from the pleroma, and would possess qualities which would distinguish him as something distinct from the pleroma.

In the pleroma there is nothing and everything. It is quite fruitless to think about the pleroma, for this would mean self-dissolution.CREATURA is not in the pleroma, but in itself. The pleroma is both beginning and end of created beings. It pervadeth them, as the light of the sun everywhere pervadeth the air. Although the pleroma pervadeth altogether, yet hath created being no share thereof, just as a wholly transparent body becometh neither light nor dark through the light which pervadeth it. We are, however, the pleroma itself, for we are a part of the eternal and infinite. But we have no share thereof, as we are from the pleroma infinitely removed; not spiritually or temporally, but essentially, since we are distinguished from the pleroma in our essence as creatura, which is confined within time and space.

Yet because we are parts of the pleroma, the pleroma is also in us. Even in the smallest point is the pleroma endless, eternal, and entire, since small and great are qualities which are contained in it. It is that nothingness which is everywhere whole and continuous. Only figuratively, therefore, do I speak of created being as a part of the pleroma. Because, actually, the pleroma is nowhere divided, since it is nothingness. We are also the whole pleroma, because, figuratively, the pleroma is the smallest point (assumed only, not existing) in us and the boundless firmament about us. But wherefore, then, do we speak of the pleroma at all, since it is thus everything and nothing?

I speak of it to make a beginning somewhere, and also to free you from the delusion that somewhere, either without or within, there standeth something fixed, or in some way established, from the beginning. Every so-called fixed and certain thing is only relative. That alone is fixed and certain which is subject to change.

What is changeable, however, is creatura. Therefore is it the one thing which is fixed and certain; because it hath qualities: it is even quality itself.

The question ariseth: How did creatura originate? Created beings came to pass, not creatura; since created being is the very quality of the pleroma, as much as non-creation which is the eternal death. In all times and places is creation, in all times and places is death. The pleroma hath all, distinctiveness and non-distinctiveness.

Distinctiveness is creatura. It is distinct. Distinctiveness is its essence, and therefore it distinguisheth. Therefore man discriminateth because his nature is distinctiveness. Wherefore also he distinguisheth qualities of the pleroma which are not. He distinguisheth them out of his own nature. Therefore must he speak of qualities of the pleroma which are not.

What use, say ye, to speak of it? Saidst thou not thyself, there is no profit in thinking upon the pleroma?

That said I unto you, to free you from the delusion that we are able to think about the pleroma. When we distinguish qualities of the pleroma, we are speaking from the ground of our own distinctiveness and concerning our own distinctiveness. But we have said nothing concerning the pleroma. Concerning our own distinctiveness, however, it is needful to speak, whereby we may distinguish ourselves enough. Our very nature is distinctiveness. If we are not true to this nature we do not distinguish ourselves enough. Therefore must we make distinctions of qualities.

What is the harm, ye ask, in not distinguishing oneself? If we do not distinguish, we get beyond our own nature, away from creatura. We fall into indistinctiveness, which is the other quality of the pleroma. We fall into the pleroma itself and cease to be creatures. We are given over to dissolution in the nothingness. This is the death of the creature. Therefore we die in such measure as we do not distinguish. Hence the natural striving of the creature goeth towards distinctiveness, fighteth against primeval, perilous sameness. This is called the principium individuationis. This principle is the essence of the creature. From this you can see why indistinctiveness and non-distinction are a great danger for the creature.

We must, therefore, distinguish the qualities of the pleroma. The qualities are pairs of opposites, such as—

The Effective and the Ineffective.
Fullness and Emptiness.
Living and Dead.
Difference and Sameness.
Light and Darkness.
The Hot and the Cold.
Force and Matter.
Time and Space.
Good and Evil.
Beauty and Ugliness.
The One and the Many. etc.

The pairs of opposites are qualities of the pleroma which are not, because each balanceth each. As we are the pleroma itself, we also have all these qualities in us. Because the very ground of our nature is distinctiveness, therefore we have these qualities in the name and sign of distinctiveness.

Very intuitive

Also when Jung was late in the years, he wrote "The answer to job" which was basically a psychological evaluation of God and then some..

 

[TimeAsylums]

@TimeAsylums- You got the red book?

Not in tangible form, only the documents.

I like Jung's mystical side-- From the Gnostic Seven Sermons to the dead.

Spoiler

Sermo I

The dead came back from Jerusalem, where they found not what they sought. They prayed me let them in and besought my word, and thus I began my teaching.

Harken: I begin with nothingness. Nothingness is the same as fullness. In infinity full is no better than empty. Nothingness is both empty and full. As well might ye say anything else of nothingness, as for instance, white is it, or black, or again, it is not, or it is. A thing that is infinite and eternal hath no qualities, since it hath all qualities.

This nothingness or fullness we name the PLEROMA. Therein both thinking and being cease, since the eternal and infinite possess no qualities. In it no being is, for he then would be distinct from the pleroma, and would possess qualities which would distinguish him as something distinct from the pleroma.

In the pleroma there is nothing and everything. It is quite fruitless to think about the pleroma, for this would mean self-dissolution.CREATURA is not in the pleroma, but in itself. The pleroma is both beginning and end of created beings. It pervadeth them, as the light of the sun everywhere pervadeth the air. Although the pleroma pervadeth altogether, yet hath created being no share thereof, just as a wholly transparent body becometh neither light nor dark through the light which pervadeth it. We are, however, the pleroma itself, for we are a part of the eternal and infinite. But we have no share thereof, as we are from the pleroma infinitely removed; not spiritually or temporally, but essentially, since we are distinguished from the pleroma in our essence as creatura, which is confined within time and space.

Yet because we are parts of the pleroma, the pleroma is also in us. Even in the smallest point is the pleroma endless, eternal, and entire, since small and great are qualities which are contained in it. It is that nothingness which is everywhere whole and continuous. Only figuratively, therefore, do I speak of created being as a part of the pleroma. Because, actually, the pleroma is nowhere divided, since it is nothingness. We are also the whole pleroma, because, figuratively, the pleroma is the smallest point (assumed only, not existing) in us and the boundless firmament about us. But wherefore, then, do we speak of the pleroma at all, since it is thus everything and nothing?

I speak of it to make a beginning somewhere, and also to free you from the delusion that somewhere, either without or within, there standeth something fixed, or in some way established, from the beginning. Every so-called fixed and certain thing is only relative. That alone is fixed and certain which is subject to change.

What is changeable, however, is creatura. Therefore is it the one thing which is fixed and certain; because it hath qualities: it is even quality itself.

The question ariseth: How did creatura originate? Created beings came to pass, not creatura; since created being is the very quality of the pleroma, as much as non-creation which is the eternal death. In all times and places is creation, in all times and places is death. The pleroma hath all, distinctiveness and non-distinctiveness.

Distinctiveness is creatura. It is distinct. Distinctiveness is its essence, and therefore it distinguisheth. Therefore man discriminateth because his nature is distinctiveness. Wherefore also he distinguisheth qualities of the pleroma which are not. He distinguisheth them out of his own nature. Therefore must he speak of qualities of the pleroma which are not.

What use, say ye, to speak of it? Saidst thou not thyself, there is no profit in thinking upon the pleroma?

That said I unto you, to free you from the delusion that we are able to think about the pleroma. When we distinguish qualities of the pleroma, we are speaking from the ground of our own distinctiveness and concerning our own distinctiveness. But we have said nothing concerning the pleroma. Concerning our own distinctiveness, however, it is needful to speak, whereby we may distinguish ourselves enough. Our very nature is distinctiveness. If we are not true to this nature we do not distinguish ourselves enough. Therefore must we make distinctions of qualities.

What is the harm, ye ask, in not distinguishing oneself? If we do not distinguish, we get beyond our own nature, away from creatura. We fall into indistinctiveness, which is the other quality of the pleroma. We fall into the pleroma itself and cease to be creatures. We are given over to dissolution in the nothingness. This is the death of the creature. Therefore we die in such measure as we do not distinguish. Hence the natural striving of the creature goeth towards distinctiveness, fighteth against primeval, perilous sameness. This is called the principium individuationis. This principle is the essence of the creature. From this you can see why indistinctiveness and non-distinction are a great danger for the creature.

We must, therefore, distinguish the qualities of the pleroma. The qualities are pairs of opposites, such as—

The Effective and the Ineffective.
Fullness and Emptiness.
Living and Dead.
Difference and Sameness.
Light and Darkness.
The Hot and the Cold.
Force and Matter.
Time and Space.
Good and Evil.
Beauty and Ugliness.
The One and the Many. etc.

The pairs of opposites are qualities of the pleroma which are not, because each balanceth each. As we are the pleroma itself, we also have all these qualities in us. Because the very ground of our nature is distinctiveness, therefore we have these qualities in the name and sign of distinctiveness.

Very intuitive

lol if Jung was not an N then no one was.

Yes. He was so deeply into mysticism and the occult. I have yet to dive into that side of him, however. I read a short book on it, there is so much information.

How he gathered and wrote all of his books on so much information, I have no idea. I can barely even get through one of his books at a time.

Also when Jung was late in the years, he wrote "The answer to job" which was basically a psychological evaluation of God and then some..

I'm primarily in love with every single one of his psychological evaluations...most are...spot on. And best of all, it's all...poetic. Everything is traceable back to the symbol...beautiful.

 

[Words]

I've read enough that I've needed to shift my attention away from the books and into observing these patterns in reality(if you will permit my insanity). Keirsey is total shit. Thompson, and her exploration on the functions, is pretty good. Jung is pretty good but too much detail.

 

[TimeAsylums]

I've read enough that I've needed to shift my attention away from the books and into observing these patterns in reality(if you will permit my insanity).

This is the reason I took the very long break from reading in the first place. So much abstraction in the books had to be shifted into reality and perceive the patterns to make sense out of it. After months (1 Jul - 1 Nov) of spitting out my Ne, I'm ready to absorb more again.

Keirsey is total shit.

^

Thompson, and her exploration on the functions, is pretty good.

She interests me, especially her work on the unconscious.

Jung is pretty good but too much detail.

lol too much information for Ti (see first reply) (alluding to the usual joke of how INTPs (Ti) can "choke" on too much information but ENTPs (Ne) loveessss it)


Anyway, the primary reason I continue to read is because, don't get me wrong, everyone succeeding Jung has done their best, but his ideas have been reduced, and therefore limited, they are meant to be understood in this way, which is okay, but I need the entire concepts and everything he intended. In many books that are not his original works, people talk about how dense and thick his usual works are so how he needed help for his information to be understood by more people (which the MBTI did so very well), but after consuming all of this information, there is more.

 

[TimeAsylums]

This will hopefully be my last post on the subject

I have seen this link many times across the board, but most (i believe) people have still yet to read it. It is Chapter 10 from Carl Jung's Psychological Types. If you have ever read Personality Junkie, it will seem crazily, eerily similar. Jung simply uses a more...thick and intensive language. Jung is spot on about everything he says. Please read it Jung gives the definition of 8 types (only the dominant functions, and speaks on auxiliary at the end, but no need to go on a fucking rave/rant about aux/terts, just read and understand, it all makes sense, and you can extrapolate on your own if you wish)

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

Some of you are lazy as fuck, so I would just post the types in put it in spoilers but it's like ten pages. Do not be so lazy to not read ten fucking pages.


I still recommend all other Jung's craziness (Collective Unconscious, Symbols, Synchronicity, Mysticism/Occultism, Philosophy), but I imagine most people are interested in the typology part, and that's it^

with this, I believe I may finally bid you adieu.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Liber Novus (introduction) p. 208, Carl G. Jung -

On Godlikeness, society, individuation, and unconscious:

Answering this demand and the corresponding break with conformity led to a tragic guilt that required expiation and called for a new "collective function," because the individual had to produce values that could serve as a substitute for his absence from society: These new values enabled one to make reparation to the collective. Individuation was for the few. Those who were insufficiently creative should rather reestablish collective conformity with a society.

Jung knows where the sweet spots are. Oh, how he speaks to me.

 

[scorpiomover]

Individuation was for the few. Those who were insufficiently creative should rather reestablish collective conformity with a society.

Bit of a problem, because MBTI frequencies of Americans show that 50% of people are introverts. If most introverts are sufficiently creative and individuate, then that would mean that individuation would be for the many. So it must be that Jung believed that most introverts are insufficiently creative and do not individuate.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Individuation was for the few. Those who were insufficiently creative should rather reestablish collective conformity with a society.

Bit of a problem, because MBTI frequencies of Americans show that 50% of people are introverts. If most introverts are sufficiently creative and individuate, then that would mean that individuation would be for the many. So it must be that Jung believed that most introverts are insufficiently creative and do not individuate.

...

wtf?

 

[scorpiomover]

...

wtf?

I was wondering what Jung meant by individuation. He said that those who weren't individuated, should conform to the collective. This suggested to me, that what he meant was those who couldn't be creative, and can't think of their own ideas, and so need to follow the ideas of others, to have some idea of what to do. Extroverts tend to follow the majority. So he'd be talking about introverts. But introverts are not "the few". They are at least half.

 

[Reluctantly]

From what I understand,

Jung seemed to believe that people who weren't able to differentiate themselves from collective society (for whatever reasons) didn't have it in them to be who they are. Because to be who you are required what he thought to be a certain amount of creativity or intelligence (and perhaps courage?) in order to garner societal acceptance for going against the grain. But by going against the grain, you add something back to society (reshaped values) and mold it in a way that reflects yourself, rather than you simply molding yourself to society. For such people that are incapable of doing this then, they would be a reflection of society and would not have the means to understand themselves enough to individuate (because they are unable to differentiate themselves); for these people, they would not be able to individuate until they begin to differentiate, which they do not seem to have the creativity to do.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Interestingly recent:

Published on Aug 7, 2013
"Carl Gustav Jung and the Red Book," an all day symposium, featured presentations by prominent Jungian scholars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy-x7BLlBYg

Watching this now, both parts. Will rate after...

For those too lazy to read :P

Edit: First impression: 5 minutes in, these people seem like legitimate Jungian/academic scholars...not bullshit, yet.

(Presented by the Library of Congress)

Edit: this is a must watch.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Ah, the beauty:

(I've been slowly working on finishing every one of Jung's published works)

From page 68-70 of Contributions to Analytical Psychology

It is not true that the development of the individuality is under all circumstances either necessary or opportune. Yet one may well believe, as Goethe has said, that "the greatest happiness of the children of earth lies only in personality," and that there are relatively many people to whom the development of individuality is the primes necessity, especially in a cultural epoch like ours that is literally flattened out by collective norms-an epoch where the newspaper is the master of the each. According to my experience there are, among people of mature age, very many for whom the development of individuality is an indispensable need. Thus I have formed the private and tentative opinion that it is just the mature man who, in our times, has the greatest need of some further education in the individual culture after his youthful education, in school and perhaps in the university has formed him on exclusively collective lines and soaked him through and through with the collective mentality. It has often been my experience that men of mature age are in this respect actually capable of education to a most unexpected degree, although it is just those ripened and strengthened through the experience of life who resist most vigorously the purely reductive standpoint

Our collective education provides practically nothing for this transitional period. Concerned solely with the education of youth we disregard the education of the adult man, of whom it is always assumed – on what grounds can say? – That he needs no more education. There is an almost total lack of guidance for this extraordinarily important change of attitude with transformation of energy from the biological to the cultural form. The transformation process is individual and cannot be enforced to general rules and maxims. It is achieved by means of the symbol as mentioned above.

 

[TimeAsylums]

I have finished most of the relevant published works of his e.g., psychologically related as far as i'm interested - though i've yet to fully take in synchronization and occult phenomena etc.

Anyway, this is a very good short 3 page summary on individuation

http://www.cgjungpage.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=526&Itemid=40

one paragraph outtake:

As we have seen, even civilized man is not yet out of the woods. The unconscious is the mother of consciousness. Where there is a mother there should also be a father, but he seems to be unknown. Consciousness, the frail youngster, may deny his father, but he cannot deny his mother. That would be too preposterous, since one can see in every child how hesitatingly and haltingly the ego-consciousness develops from a fragmentary consciousness of the moment, and how it slowly appears out of the complete darkness of mere instinctivity.

 

[TBerg]

What would you say, besides Man and His Symbols and the Undiscovered Self, is the most illustrative of his genius? I have Symbols and Transformation, Aion, and the Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious still bereft of being steeped in my consciousness. I can't wait to finish the more introductory work of Freud before getting into the more advanced work of Jung.

 

[TimeAsylums]

What would you say, besides Man and His Symbols and the Undiscovered Self, is the most illustrative of his genius? I have Symbols and Transformation, Aion, and the Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious still bereft of being steeped in my consciousness. I can't wait to finish the more introductory work of Freud before getting into the more advanced work of Jung.

AS FAR AS illustrative goes...I'll have to ponder on that and get back to you. However, I think most people regard his crowning achievement to be Psychological Types.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Works of Jung:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung_publications

I have read the books that have uncolored text (er, white), and I have NOT read the ones in grey.

• Psychiatric Studies (1902–1905)
• On the Psychology and Pathology of So-Called Occult Phenomena (1904) (Jung's dissertation)
• Studies in Word Association (1904-1907)
• The Psychology of Dementia Praecox (1907)
• The Psychogenesis of Mental Disease (1907-1958)
• Psychology of the Unconscious (1912)
• Collected Papers on Analytical Psychology (1917)
• Two Essays on Analytical Psychology (1917, 1928)
• *Psychological Types, or, The Psychology of Individuation (1921)
• Contributions to Analytical Psychology (1928)
• The Psychology of Kundalini Yoga (1932)
• *Modern Man in Search of a Soul (1933)
• *The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (1934-1954)
• Psychology and Religion 1938
• The Integration of the Personality (1940)
• Psychology and Alchemy (1944)
• Essays on Contemporary Events (1947)
• On the Nature of the Psyche (1947, revised 1954)
• Foreword, pp. xxi-xxxix (19 pages), to Wilhelm/Baynes translation of The I Ching or Book of Changes (1949)
• Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self (1951)
• **Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle. (1952, 1973 2nd ed.)
• Answer to Job. 1958 (1952)
• Mysterium Coniunctionis: An Inquiry into the Separation and
• Synthesis of Psychic Opposites in Alchemy. (1956, This was Jung's last book length work, completed when he was eighty)
• *The Undiscovered Self (Present and Future) (1957, 1959 ed.)
• Psyche and Symbol: A Selection from the Writings of C.G. Jung (1958)
• Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies (1959)
• Basic Writings (1959)
• *Memories, Dreams, Reflections (1962)
• Conversations with Carl Jung and Reactions from Ernest Jones (1964)
• *Jung, C. G., & Franz, M.-L. v. Man and His Symbols. (1964)
• The Practice of Psychotherapy: Essays on the Psychology of the Transference and other Subjects (1964)
• *The Development of Personality (1967, 1991 ed.)
• Analytical Psychology: Its Theory and Practise (a.k.a. "The Tavistock Lectures") (1968)
• *our Archetypes; Mother, Rebirth, Spirit, Trickster. (1978)
• *Dreams (1974)
• *The Portable Jung. a compilation (1976)
• Abstracts of the Collected Works of C.G. Jung. (1978)
• *The Essential Jung. a compilation (1983)
• *Psychology and the East (1986)
• Dictionary of Analytical Psychology (1987)
• *Psychology and Western Religion (1988)
• *The World Within C.G. Jung in his own words [videorecording] (1990)
• *Psychological Types (a revised ed.) (1991)
• Jung on Active Imagination (1997)
• Jung's Seminar on Nietzsche's Zarathustra (1998)
• **Atom and Archetype : The Pauli/Jung Letters, 1932-1958 (2001)
• **The Earth Has a Soul (2002)
• **The Jung-White Letters (2007)
• **Children’s Dreams (2007)
• The Red Book. Liber Novus (2009)
• **The Question of Psychological Types: The Correspondence of C. G. Jung and Hans Schmid Guisan, 1915–1916. (2013)

* = on my list to read
* = recommended

I'm not personally interested in much of the religion/occult stuff unless it deals directly with the psychology of the religion/occult.

Anything I found particularly interesting, I believe I have quoted or posted in this thread.


Jung on Synchronicity/Einstein/Wolfgang Pauli:

He discussed these ideas with Albert Einstein before World War I, but first used the term "synchronicity" in a 1930 lecture, in reference to the unusual psychological insights generated from consulting the I Ching. A long correspondence and friendship with the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Wolfgang Pauli stimulated a final, mature statement of Jung's thinking on synchronicity, originally published in 1952 and reproduced in this book...

 

[TimeAsylums]

What would you say, besides Man and His Symbols and the Undiscovered Self, is the most illustrative of his genius? I have Symbols and Transformation, Aion, and the Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious still bereft of being steeped in my consciousness. I can't wait to finish the more introductory work of Freud before getting into the more advanced work of Jung.

Alright, I finally got around to it,

if you wanted an all-around most-encompassing book on him, it would be The Portable Jung

 

[TBerg]

Thank you, TimeAsylums. I just read the first chapter of Symbols and Transformation yesterday. I will check into the Portable Jung and see about getting the full copy of Psychological Types in the future.

What would you say is the best case against Freud's reduction of life manifestations to love/life and death?

 

[TimeAsylums]

What would you say is the best case against Freud's reduction of life manifestations to love/life and death?

His tendency for the reductive stance to everything being sexual in nature of human psyche is addressed in (m)any of Jung's books. Jung, rather than being exclusive in his theories, is inclusive. He states how both Freud's and Adler's theories aren't necessarily wrong, but lacking. Jung recognizes the sexual aspect that Freud made his prime cause, but Jung says that it is not the determinant, though the sexual instincts clearly play a heavy role.

 

[Cherry Cola]

With Jung sexual desires hidden even in the unconscious, implicit in the primordial stories which play out in the cellar of consciousness. With Freud the same cellar is a whorehouse, ironically I think that the whole theory stems from Freud's personal issues, he's disgusted by man and so has to paint him out like a caricature in order for reality not to haunt him so.

Arguably Jung gets a lot closer the truth, look at animals. Peacocks and Chimps and the like. Even they've all got their rituals, sex can not just be in itself it must be urged on by something else, something we perceive as meaningful.