Towards the end of this interesting, informative and uneven collection of interactions with C.G. Jung, the subject of the book cheerily explains that his main aim for his 85th birthday was to avoid visitors, particularly "highbrows" who he says have no idea what he's talking about and don't read his books. "I'm not a bit taken in by intellectuals, you know," he says. "After all, I'm one myself."
Apart from the continuing issue of whether those who critique Jung's ideas (including some Jungians) have actually read his stuff closely, or at all, this statement encapsulates a number of reasons for engaging with Jung, with its dry wit and self-deprecation. Elsewhere in this book, he's quoted as saying that "extroversion" is bad Latin (which it is) with an implication that those who use this spelling were lacking in that knowledge, or not paying attention.
Jung was apparently good company, which confused some who possibly thought that if he were an introvert he wouldn't be able to engage with people this way. Jung might reply that they should read what he said about this construct, rather than carry around their own preconceptions.
It's actually the way Jung speaks, explains himself, his references and so on that make him interesting to me; but I would never call myself a Jungian, as it implies blind followership, or, alternatively, a connection that may be tenuous. He was, after all, a man of his time, like anyone else, with all that implies.
I first read this book sometime last century, and picked it up a few days ago as preparation for a presentation and a book review. It's essentially an easy read, and you can get an idea of Jung himself and some of the opinions of his followers, who essentially appear to be in awe of him, as do some others. Some of this has to do with him being perceived as a "wise old man" notwithstanding his core ideas being presented when he was nothing of the sort as far as age went. I think this is a problem in studying Jung; he's also invariably shown as this aged person which means you mostly get photos of him in the 1950s, rather than the 1920s or earlier. The label of age is also belied by his sharp prose or conversation.
The material in this book is presented in chronological order as far as the events described go, starting with a friend's early memories. There are a number of observations on America, quite a few on Adolf Hitler, who Jung identifies as a "medicine man" and so therefore not a personality, some post-war interviews about the state of the world (according to Jung's interpretation), and observations by random visitors.
The most valuable part of the book is that it contains the Houston Films and Face-to-Face interviews, in which Jung provides his perspective on a number of issues and explains his ideas. The former appear at times to be patronising, but this may be due to the nervousness of the interviewer. Jung was a famously combative person regarding his ideas, something you also see in the two-volume Letters, which came out not long before this text.
There's also an interesting explanation of the Christmas Tree, a critique of a thesis by Ira Progoff that is informative, a brief encounter with a music therapist which was personally touching and enlightening and a piece entitled The Art of Living (where he puts the boot into intellectuals) in which Jung explains his ideas about the stages of life (for want of a better term).
Jung of course explains elsewhere here that he has no system, and here and there he provides examples that bolster this claim. To me it seems that for him a system leads to ossification, dogmatism and the like and so therefore eliminates exceptions to the rule, acausal events. That doesn't mean he doesn't want you to take his ideas seriously.
There's a section called "At The Basel Psychology Club" in which Jung responds to a number of questions from this group and genuinely fascinating, as far as the nature of the questions go, not topics I would personally have asked Jung to comment on. You get an idea of his erudition and the manner of his speaking. And he is not uncritical.
A number of these questions are theologically centred, one in particular wishing to suggest a connection between an idea called dual predestination and synchronicity. Jung, like me, had never heard of the former, and swiftly demolishes the suggestion, clearly sneering at the idea and in a follow-up response speaking of the "acrobatics of predestination" and elaborating on related theological issues. I found this refreshing and engaging, particularly as a person interested in such ideas and how they came about. Elsewhere Jung states that he is no Calvinist.
It all depends on what you want, but if you have an interest in Jung, this book can give you an essential insight into who he was and what he thought, with a minimum level of hagiography.