I definitely feel like I've been a Jungian all my life before having discovered Jung. That's what made it all the more exciting to find, it was a feeling of "Ah yes this is it."
I think knowledge can't be truly lost or destroyed. What is discovered can be discovered again. So there indeed can be Jungians all over the world without them knowing Jung. I once burned some of my notes and felt very sad. But I believe the same insights will come to me again.
Just for fun I would like to relate this old song. "Van Amburgh is the man, who goes to all the shows He goes into the lion's cage, and tells you all he knows; He sticks his head in the lion's mouth,and keeps it there a-while, And when he pulls it out again, he greets you with a smile. ... That Hyena in the next cage, most terrible to relate, Got awful hungry the other day, and ate up his female mate; He’s a very ferocious beast, don't go near him little boys, For when he's angry he shakes his tail, and makes this awful noise."
It seems that what makes analysis so fascinating is also what makes it so frustrating to grasp. It's the border where cold factual knowledge isn't enough and you need to develop a kind of je ne sais quoi to develop it. It melds multiple things and that also means it forces you to develop multiple skills, and perhaps that's why so many of Jung's students fell short because they took the teachings as more static things than fluid; like a recipe that is adapted to each single person. Perhaps, in order to be a good analyst, one has to be profoundly human. Develop all the facets of being a human and, simultaneously, polish themselves to be better.
What do you mean by Jung's students falling short? I guess he's the most famous of the Jungians lol - but this is my first time hearing it put this way
@@nitro2infinity Don't get me wrong, jungian analysts do a good job, but I meant to say how he had to reprimand them for not properly understanding what he meant; they weren't at his level and never would. I also watched another extract of von Franz where she said how Jung was so multi faceted that he talked to his students differently depending on what they were leaning towards the most. For example, he never talked to her about astrology, and later in life she mentioned exchanging words with other students who did had those conversations with him, and feeling that she had lost on that chance. Each of Jung's successors managed to grasp one thing or various things that he taught and even expand on them, but never the whole.
@@jaimeXDgo I see. Yeah when reading his books it does feel like his intuitive understanding of the concepts is so unbelievably deep. Whereas perhaps the student's way of coming to terms with something like the anima is first as the concept and then as the immediate experience, I bet it was the other way around for him. I wonder when another Jung will come around and what it will look like. That being said Marie lvf is so great too for example as I feel like she also has such a deep understanding - but maybe if I were to read her books too she may come up short?
@@nitro2infinity Well, vF was probably his best student, or so it seems to me as she's the name I most often hear when talking about Jung's succesors. I also heard she is a much better writer due to the fact that she makes herself understood and the whole esoteric veil that seems to envelop all of Jung's works is not there for hers. Basically, her books explain the jungian stuff better. Or so they say, I've yet to read her. On the other subject, I doubt Jung's experience with things like the Anima was to experience it first and then develop the concept since a big point of Jung's work was that he "rediscovered" many of those things by studying old texts and cultures. He claims that these things were already intuitively known by the people of old, and that he simply unearthed them and gave it more clear names and definitions.
@@mertkusluvan3107popperian methodology of falsification can 100% be applied to products of memes, we do it all the time in finance for example. Is it the end all be all? Fuck no. Does it "work"? Yeah, in its intended spectrum, it does.
@@mertkusluvan3107 yeah, as much as I appreciate Jung’s work, his thoughts and discoveries on the archetypes are difficult to be properly described scientifically. I would say its rather something that can be observed and therefore drawn to conclusion, but very difficult to be actually proven. For an instance, I think that the work of Joseph Campbell is an interesting way to look at it. It definitely recalls on Jung’s mythological and archetypal approach with a great level of historical accuracy and context, that “observation” part. That being said, how can one measure the domains of anthropology, history and sociology in a scientific way? Psychology can be tested in many ways, for sure, but the problem of many of Jung’s ideas are that they are not merely in the domains of psychology, but they also spill on other fields of study that are more difficult to be scientifically measured. That being said, the degree and depth to which those phenomenons can be observed in history and culture can’t also be discredited. It’s an interesting debate.
Well here's the rest of the silly song which gives my heart some joy and hopefully yours too. "Next comes the Anaconda Boa Constrictor, oft called Anaconda for brevity, He's known throughout the whole wide world for his age and great longevity; He can swallow himself, crawl into himself, and crawl out again with facility, He can tie himself into a double-bow-knot with his tail, and smile with the greatest facility. The peacock is a pretty bird, his tail is wondrous fine, The Jay bird and the jackdaw are mad to see it shine, The Kangaroos are jumping, and rattling the cage door, Look out ye little boys, for the lion's going to roar. The monkey in the next cage, is cuffing his little brother, He's not to blame for doing that, for he learned it of his mother; The skin of his face is drawn so tight, and coverv'd o're with kinks, And when he winks, he's sure to gape, and when he gapes he winks. Next comes the Great Vulture, awful bird, from highest mountain's top, He's been known to eat up little girls, and then to lick his chops; The performance can't go on, there's too much noise and confusion, Ladies don't feed those monkeys cakes, you'll ruin their constitutions."
I definitely feel like I've been a Jungian all my life before having discovered Jung. That's what made it all the more exciting to find, it was a feeling of "Ah yes this is it."
@@nitro2infinity me too♡
I think knowledge can't be truly lost or destroyed. What is discovered can be discovered again. So there indeed can be Jungians all over the world without them knowing Jung. I once burned some of my notes and felt very sad. But I believe the same insights will come to me again.
Knowledge is. Everything is Consciousness 🙏🏻
Absolutely!
She's somewhat wise herself
somewhat???
Somewhat?!?!? Oh, She is Wisdom Itself 😊
@alteracco2715 you just triggered my shadow 😊 Oh, you're brilliant 👏🏻 thank you 🙏🏻
Just for fun I would like to relate this old song.
"Van Amburgh is the man, who goes to all the shows
He goes into the lion's cage, and tells you all he knows;
He sticks his head in the lion's mouth,and keeps it there a-while,
And when he pulls it out again, he greets you with a smile.
...
That Hyena in the next cage, most terrible to relate,
Got awful hungry the other day, and ate up his female mate;
He’s a very ferocious beast, don't go near him little boys,
For when he's angry he shakes his tail, and makes this awful noise."
I dare to say that analysis is three fold science art and happening more to the core semblance
It seems that what makes analysis so fascinating is also what makes it so frustrating to grasp. It's the border where cold factual knowledge isn't enough and you need to develop a kind of je ne sais quoi to develop it. It melds multiple things and that also means it forces you to develop multiple skills, and perhaps that's why so many of Jung's students fell short because they took the teachings as more static things than fluid; like a recipe that is adapted to each single person. Perhaps, in order to be a good analyst, one has to be profoundly human. Develop all the facets of being a human and, simultaneously, polish themselves to be better.
What do you mean by Jung's students falling short? I guess he's the most famous of the Jungians lol - but this is my first time hearing it put this way
@@nitro2infinity Don't get me wrong, jungian analysts do a good job, but I meant to say how he had to reprimand them for not properly understanding what he meant; they weren't at his level and never would. I also watched another extract of von Franz where she said how Jung was so multi faceted that he talked to his students differently depending on what they were leaning towards the most. For example, he never talked to her about astrology, and later in life she mentioned exchanging words with other students who did had those conversations with him, and feeling that she had lost on that chance. Each of Jung's successors managed to grasp one thing or various things that he taught and even expand on them, but never the whole.
@@jaimeXDgo I see. Yeah when reading his books it does feel like his intuitive understanding of the concepts is so unbelievably deep. Whereas perhaps the student's way of coming to terms with something like the anima is first as the concept and then as the immediate experience, I bet it was the other way around for him. I wonder when another Jung will come around and what it will look like. That being said Marie lvf is so great too for example as I feel like she also has such a deep understanding - but maybe if I were to read her books too she may come up short?
@@nitro2infinity Well, vF was probably his best student, or so it seems to me as she's the name I most often hear when talking about Jung's succesors. I also heard she is a much better writer due to the fact that she makes herself understood and the whole esoteric veil that seems to envelop all of Jung's works is not there for hers. Basically, her books explain the jungian stuff better. Or so they say, I've yet to read her.
On the other subject, I doubt Jung's experience with things like the Anima was to experience it first and then develop the concept since a big point of Jung's work was that he "rediscovered" many of those things by studying old texts and cultures. He claims that these things were already intuitively known by the people of old, and that he simply unearthed them and gave it more clear names and definitions.
How are archetypes scientific?
Archetypes are. "Science" is an archetype itself 😊
@@AnaAuriga28 What I mean is how can the existence of archetypes be shown through scientific method?
@mertkusluvan3107 Everybody talking about the same all throughout the world, arriving at the same conclusions... archetypal wisdom.
@@mertkusluvan3107popperian methodology of falsification can 100% be applied to products of memes, we do it all the time in finance for example. Is it the end all be all? Fuck no. Does it "work"? Yeah, in its intended spectrum, it does.
@@mertkusluvan3107 yeah, as much as I appreciate Jung’s work, his thoughts and discoveries on the archetypes are difficult to be properly described scientifically. I would say its rather something that can be observed and therefore drawn to conclusion, but very difficult to be actually proven. For an instance, I think that the work of Joseph Campbell is an interesting way to look at it. It definitely recalls on Jung’s mythological and archetypal approach with a great level of historical accuracy and context, that “observation” part. That being said, how can one measure the domains of anthropology, history and sociology in a scientific way? Psychology can be tested in many ways, for sure, but the problem of many of Jung’s ideas are that they are not merely in the domains of psychology, but they also spill on other fields of study that are more difficult to be scientifically measured. That being said, the degree and depth to which those phenomenons can be observed in history and culture can’t also be discredited. It’s an interesting debate.
Well here's the rest of the silly song which gives my heart some joy and hopefully yours too.
"Next comes the Anaconda Boa Constrictor, oft called Anaconda for brevity,
He's known throughout the whole wide world for his age and great longevity;
He can swallow himself, crawl into himself, and crawl out again with facility,
He can tie himself into a double-bow-knot with his tail, and smile with the greatest facility.
The peacock is a pretty bird, his tail is wondrous fine,
The Jay bird and the jackdaw are mad to see it shine,
The Kangaroos are jumping, and rattling the cage door,
Look out ye little boys, for the lion's going to roar.
The monkey in the next cage, is cuffing his little brother,
He's not to blame for doing that, for he learned it of his mother;
The skin of his face is drawn so tight, and coverv'd o're with kinks,
And when he winks, he's sure to gape, and when he gapes he winks.
Next comes the Great Vulture, awful bird, from highest mountain's top,
He's been known to eat up little girls, and then to lick his chops;
The performance can't go on, there's too much noise and confusion,
Ladies don't feed those monkeys cakes, you'll ruin their constitutions."