Two of my favourite giants on whose shoulders I stand, Carl Jung is the subject of this book and Anthony Storr whose work and writing I am increasingly adoring. I found myself seeing that Jordan Peterson draws extensively and repackages the ideas of Carl Jung to a new generation.
Jung discusses Alchemy from a mythological perspective, “the early alchemists ‘sought not only to make gold, but to perfect everything in it’s own nature’” p 17. This changes my reading of the Alchemist by Paulo Coelho which I recommend to everyone. It makes me think that I am an Alchemist in that I am obsessed in my clinical work and personal life in trying to be the catalyst for people (including myself) being the best version of themselves.
Jung denotes the great rejector that is the female archetype. “Because she is his greatest danger she demands from man his greatest, and if he has it in him she will receive it” (p 97). Jordan Peterson talks a lot of the feminine archetypical role of the rejector. The role of feminine rejection explains why humans evolved so far. It is the feminine role to demand the best of men, and only carry the best men forward. This archetypical quality explains misogyny. Who likes to be judged and rejected?
Jung could have been describing me when he wrote about introverts. “Introversion, on the other hand, being directed not to the object but the subject, and not being oriented by the object, is not so easy to put into perspective. The introvert is not forthcoming, he is as though in continual retreat before the object. He holds aloof from external happenings, does not join in, has a distinct dislike of society as soon as he find himself among too many people. In a larger gathering he feels lonely and lost. The more crowded it is, the greater becomes his resistance. He is not in the least ‘with it,’ and has no love of enthusiastic get togethers. He is not a good mixer” (p 124). I don’t like parties. I would prefer an hour alone with an individual I find interesting, over six hours with the most beautiful people.
“To the man in the second half of life the development of the function of opposites lying dormant in the unconscious means a renewal; but this development no longer proceeds via the solution of infantile ties, the destruction of infantile illusions and the transference of old imagos to new figures: it proceeds via the problem of opposites” (p146). This has been a theme of a lot of Jungian inspired work I have been consuming. The problems of the second half of life. We must cast aside the stories of what we needed to do as youth (study hard so you can get a good job, so you can buy a nice house, so you can care for your nice children, and have a nice retirement, before having a nice funeral). In the second half of life you realise the stories you were told do not bring satisfaction or fulfilment. You must orientate yourself to your calling. Resist it at your peril.
“I make it a heuristic rule, in interpreting a dream, to ask myself: What conscious attitude does it compensate?” (p 160). This is a beautiful question I will carry forward. “Assimilation is never a question of ‘this or that,’ but always of ‘this and that’” (p 162). Two opposites living together in harmony
I found it worth reading the entire book for the essay "The Development of Personality" alone. This was amazingly profound. “One of the most shining examples of the meaning of personality that history has preserved for us is the life of Christ (p 179). He argues that Christ remained steadfastly committed to his inner voice and also mentions the Buddha as another example. He talks of daemons, which is something I have resolved to do is listen to my own daemon. It is difficult and challenged me to do uncomfortable things and have difficult conversations. It is working out OK so far, but I feel always one step from catastrophe as I try to maintain an authentic personality.
“Once the revolutionary, unhistorical, and therefore uneducated inclinations of the rising generation have had their fill of tearing down tradition, new heroes will be sought and found. Even the Bolsheviks, whose radicalism leaves nothing to be desired, have embalmed Lenin, and made a saviour of Karl Marx” (p 180). I see this happening with our rising generation destroying the establishment and I ask myself who are their new gods of environmentalism and social justice going to be? Are they going to replace a bad tyranny with a worse one? It is clear from Jung’s work he was no lover of communism, seeing the destruction it reeks on the psyche.
Jung quotes Meister Eckhart “God is not good, or else he could be better” (p 184). I thought about this for about two days. The devil tempts us, not with evil, but with the thought we could do better. Sometimes we are correct and subjecting ourselves to a chaos that leads to better, as we risk what we have hoping of better. Sometimes seeking better ends in tragedy. We cannot know, because better is a quality of the unknown, not the good as I reflected on my own temptations of better. Sometimes I have opened the door and it ended well, other times not so well. At other times I have not walked through the sliding door and what lies beyond remains a mystery. When we knowingly sacrifice what we know is good, for something that might be better. We gamble with the catastrophe that could just as easily result.
“In order to hide this undeniable but exceedingly unpleasant fact from ourselves and at the same time pay lip service to freedom, we have got accustomed to saying apotropaically ‘I have such and such a desire or habit or feeling of resentment,’ instead of the more veracious ‘such and such a desire or habit or feeling of resentment has me’. – “The truth is that we do not enjoy masterless freedom; we are continually threatened by psychic factors which, in the guise of ‘natural phenomena,’ may take possession of us at any moment. We do not create Good, we choose him. We have no control over its inner life. But because his inner life is intrinsically free and not subject to our will and intentions, it may easily happen that the living thing chosen and defined by us will drop out of its setting, the man-made image, even against our will” (p 213). I cannot improve on this. A dangerous idea that we can be possessed by idea. We are not in as much control of our selves as we would like to admit. Rationality does not help us with this. We need to maintain a scepticism about ourselves if we are any chance of avoiding possession by the spirit of dangerous ideas.
“Evil needs to be pondered just as much as good, for good and evil are ultimately nothing but ideal extensions and abstractions of doing, and both belong to the chiaroscuro of life”. There is no good that cannot produce evil and no evil that cannot produce good” (p 243). This reminded me of the Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn quote about the battle between good and evil occurring in the heart of every man. I try and ponder when am I being evil. Acting solely for myself and manipulating others to my desires. These days I try and tell them I am doing so. I will tell them of my vested interest. I am sure I produce evil that I am blind too (such is the shadow). I am more aware that I can be evil, and try not to be. “Evil lies in man” (p 351) The development of the atomic bomb was inspired by the honest acknowledgement of the evil of the other (in this case Nazi Germany). We can more easily see and fear evil in the other, than we do in ourselves. We would do well to balance this.
“The Pharisee in us will never allow himself to be caught talking to publicans and whores” (p 244). Who are the publicans and whores in your life? The untouchables and people beneath you. Are they Nazi’s, Racists, Sexists? Do they not love the Earth? I think the point of this is when the publicans and whores are found, it is incumbent on you to them, or at least respect the divinity within them. No one is beneath you.
“If, for instance, I determine the weight of each pebble stone in a bed of pebbles and get an average weight of five ounces, this tell me very little about the real nature of the pebbles” – “The statistical method shows the facts in the light of the ideal average but does not give us a picture of empirical reality” (p 310). This spoke to me of focusing on the individual in my practice. See the person in front of me, and not what identity groups that they might belong. You only find out about someone by speaking to them, not by making assumptions based in identity markers.
“The State in particular is turned into a quasi-animate personality from whom everything is expected. In reality it is only a camouflage for those individuals who know how to manipulate it” (p 315). In society we treat our Government in the religious manner we used to treat God. We blame when things are unjust or not to our likely. We expect divine protection of our rights from this sky father. In the end Governments are not Gods, only a collection of people. Some of these people are good at manipulating the levers for there desired outcome. I don’t know what we do about it. I expect a level of corruption within this system it is not divine.
“Even today psychology is still, for the most part, the science of conscious contents, measured as far as possible by collective standards” (p 356). Psychology suffer from a belief in the logos at the expense of the mythos. We believe ourselves and others to be rationale actors, in spite of compelling evidence that we are not. Where does that leave us? Vulnerable to worship our own good and fear the evil of the other. Our species requires a “momentous transformation if humanity is not to destroy itself through the might of its own technology and science” (p 356). This was Jung’s last warning and seems relevant today as when he wrote it.
Jung remains the Master I am most drawn too. Storr’s work has deepened this. This gave me a lot to ponder. I will keep reading Jung or books inspired by him.