Talk:Carl Jung/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Expanding this article

I would really like to see a bit more information about Jungs various books, and his interest in eastern philosophies. I would do it myself, but I'm not very knowledgable about Jung in general.

Spellings and Word Meanings. I see that this page has the spelling "extroversion", but I believe that the accepted spelling today is "extraversion". Also, I should say that some one should establish a hyper-link or wiki-link to the word "extraversion", as this word has been defined in different ways at different times.

I agree with this comment, the article remains sub-standard. JKillah 16:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Campbell

Does such an outstanding thinker as Joseph Campbell only merit his mentioning through two pop cultural avenues like Star Wars and The Matrix?

I'd argue whether the line should even exist in the article, I don't think there's any evidence that his thoughts led to the Star Wars movies. It may be possible to look at them in a Campbellian or Jungian light, but neither led to them. Sherurcij
22:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Look at this (admittedly unsourced) quote from the Star Wars article Mythology subsection: Lucas has stated that his intention was to create in Star Wars a modern mythology based on the studies of his friend and mentor Joseph Campbell. What is not stated in either article is Campbell's relationship to Jung. --Blainster 23:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Campbell and Lucas were in good relations. I read somewhere that Campbell recorded video documentaries in Lucas's ranch. If we try harder, I guess better evidence will come up. But do we need? --pippo2001 01:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe that in Christopher Vogler's book called The Writers Journey it is mentioned that Campbell's theories on the Journey of the Hero is linked to Star Wars, most of Vogler's examples either use Star wars or Wizard of Oz, although whether or not this means that the narrative arch of Star Wars is based on Campbell's theory (and therefore Jung's) I'm afraid I'm not too sure. Ex con87 (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tech problem with HTML.

For some reason, only on Carl Jung page, all of the carriage returns are lost and the words carry over endlessly to the right. The page is impossibly wide, and each paragraph is only one or two lines up and down. No other page seems to have this problem. I have IE 5.5 on Windows NT. Robert Moore, moved here Analytical Psychology. --pippo2001 16:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This happens if you leave a blank space in the first column of any line. It is a design "feature", not a browser problem. --Blainster 23:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Rumored...

Although Jung was wary of founding a "school" of psychology — he was once rumored to have said, "Thank God I'm Jung and not a Freudian." — he did...

One of you two: cite a source. Better still, since I'm sure you'll find both, find out where it came from. Please don't add it back to the page, as at present it is unverified. --Mgreenbe 16:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Google search supports "jungian" (which I reverted to) which also fits best with the context of the sentence. Paul foord 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Supports" here is a single link. I think some firmer grounding is needed. --Mgreenbe 23:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please look more closely at the results - I saw 2 separate sources in my search. Another search found 2 sources on first page for "not a jungian"[1]

Integral Leadership - The San Diego Ken Wilber Meetup Group ...
Jung said once to his colleagues -- thank god I'm not a Jungian. Well -- I am not a Wilberian. http://kenwilber.meetup.com/261/boards/view/viewthread?thread=1610478
ANZAPT - Australia & New Zealand Association of Psychiatrists in ...
I should also add that I am not a Jungian (“Thank God I’m not a Jungian!” said Jung) but rather a “Jamesian”. That is, like many psychotherapists, ... http://www.anzapt.org/mambo/content/view/121//

-- Paul foord 11:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Burghölzli

Re THANK YOU. I want to thank everybody who participated in creating this wonderful article. Carry on the good work! So many new things to learn. Even for a native Swiss like me. Thank you for the heartwarming story of how the great scientist cured an Alcoholic. Thank you for letting me know about how he visited India and other far off places, and what interesting dreams he had there. Thank you for pointing out his influence on Laurens van der Post and all the beautiful albums and video games. Thank you above all for what you did NOT mention: the rumors surrounding Jung's Presidency of a certain Verein and a certain Zeitschrift 1933-39 in a certain country somewhere North of Switzerland. These are, of course, nothing but ugly propaganda lies, totally unfounded and UNSOURCED. Pure POV and ORIGINAL RESEARCH, spread by disgruntled students who flunked their exams and are now using the internet as their private little SOAPBOX to get back at their professors. Thank you for not lending your ears to these sinister calumniators!
One little question: Three months ago, when we came down from the mountains to visit Zürich, the Burghölzli (or Klapsmühle, as Jung called it) was still in the city. But apparently it was moved in the meantime because, as the article states, it is now "near" Zürich. So I would be grateful if you could inform me of its new location. Also, while you are at it, you might indicate where, exactly, that other clinic, the Burgholzi (the one "in" Zürich according to the article), can be found. Looking forward to your answer. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe an anonymous editor who thinks Jung to be a behaviorist changed it at some point to "near Vienna"; this is wrong, of course, but I may have only changed the city and not the preposition. Feel free to make any changes you see fit! --Mgreenbe 11:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Re CHANGES. Why on earth should I want to change anything in the article, Mgreenbe? As far as I am concerned, the article is PERFECT. An article has to document current opinion ("knowledge", in WPish). And this is what the article does, Mgreenbe.
The commentary (the discussion page) is another thing. I would have expected you to understand this.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Der Schoss ist fruchtbar noch, aus dem das kroch! (B.Brecht)

Re MAGGOTS. No one who understands German will fail to be moved by the powerful image of a cunt crawling with big fat maggots suggested by the closing lines of Brecht's Arturo Ui. No translation comes close to it. Not the standard The womb is fertile still, from which this fruit was born (so flat and so genteel), and not the alternative ..., from which this crept or ..., that this crawled out from.
Mr Ui and his henchmen are no more, Brecht tells us, but the "womb" that this crawled out from is very much alive: the IRRATIONAL i.e. the schools like the one founded by C.G.Jung that teach among other things that a man can acquire knowledge magically, i.e. ohne Sinnesorgane (no need for any of the senses) or even ohne lebendes Hirn (without a living brain, but a dead one will apparently do for the Herr Professor). It is hardly a coincidence that the real Mr Ui always claimed, and firmly believed, that he possessed a Sixth Sense.
All this, Bertolt Brecht showed us clearly. But it does not come across in translation. It cannot. A word like fruchtbar e.g. has no equivalent in English. Of course, it does mean fertile, but it also looks and sounds like furchtbar (terrible, horrible, horrid). There you have it. There is no way around it. You have to learn German if you want to see the maggots. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Fruchtbar" easily translates into "fruitful."Lestrade (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Jung on the numinous

Does anyone know how precisely Jung's concept of the numinous differed from that of Rudolf Otto? I'm trying to improve the article on the numinous, but it's been a while since I read Jung's view on the subject. noosphere 05:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

He sometimes uses the term to describe archetypes of a spiritual nature. And in Psychology and Religion (par. 6-9) he described Otto's word numinosum as "a dynamic agency or effect not caused by an arbitrary act of will", so that the experiencer is "victim rather than creator." Then "the numinosum is either a quality belonging to the visible object or the influence of an invisible presence that causes a peculiar alteration of consciousness." However, he admits that many ritualistic practices are done with the purpose of producing a numinosum effect. He then goes on to define religion as "the attitude peculiar to a consciousness which has been changed by experience of the numinosum." --Blainster 23:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Great, thank you for that, Blainster. I'll try to think of a way to incorporate that in to the article. noosphere 03:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"Spiritualism(!?!) as a Cure (!?!) for alcoholism

This Section clearly bears the mark of someone with no clinical background, and certainly, no objectivity.

First of all, it is ‘Spirituality’ not ‘Spiritualism’ (there is a great difference!) Second, the use of the word ‘reform’ substantiates both of the above criticisms. Even Jung (with his own personal issues) would not refer to a patient as needing to be ‘reformed’ any more than he would refer to a diabetic as needing to be ‘reformed’.

Blaming the patient! To convince someone with a disease that the problem lies with a substantial deficiency in their ‘self’ is unconscionable to a competent professional.

I suggest the author of this section read some good, objective material on the life of Carl Jung. Jung could not, and would not, admit to not being able to help a particularly difficult patient; his ego and self-concept would not let him. His own struggles with the patient ‘Rowland H.’ (which is clearly the basis for this Section) are a classic part of the literature on Jung.

If this Section must remain a part of the Article on Jung, I am very troubled by its present form. It needs to be reworked!

Michael David 00:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can find some source material to back up your claims, by all means please add them to the page. I agree that the section is in need of clean-up. JKillah 16:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and would ask the Article page writer here to see the Film "Patch Adams", which explores this incorrect attitude, in the patient/doctor relationship. (Sorry for being so late here, but it is a point that must be made!)

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Page Organization?

Seeing as their are pages on Jungian psychology, the order of sections in this page seems quite awkward. "Jung's Life" seems to occur in the middle of discussions of his theories. I think "Jung's life" and "Jung and Freud" should be moved to the top? JKillah 15:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Jung's life is significant only because of his thinking. A concise overview of his central ideas--that which makes him a relevant thinker in Western history--should come first, then the details of his life--which are of secondary importance to the history of Western thought. As far as your point (which is a good one) regarding the page on Jungian Psychology, I think there could be a good argument made for getting rid of the page on "Jungian Psychology" and just having one page. It would be silly to have one page on Aristotle and then a different on Aristotelian philosophy, or one on Shakspeare and another on Shakspeare's works. Davidgustaft 17 May 2006

I agree with the first poster. As an article "Carl Jung" should deal primarly with his life and only secondarily with his theory and thinking. If you want an article about his thinking, it would be reasonable to refer to Jungian psychology. This article should be reorganized. → Aethralis 14:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is something that is perplexing me as well. Why is biography information secondary to his theories and ideas on the article? Information on his school of psychology belongs on analytical psychology, not here. — Sam 00:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo?

Does anyone know of a public domain photo of Jung? Perhaps one from when he was a young man that would be 100 years old by now? This page could use one. JKillah 15:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk Archive

As part of a general page clean-up, I have archived all of the discussion that has been completed under the link above. JKillah 16:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Jung and the Nazis

He suggests you read a book, so he's a nazi? How ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.157.24 (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added a section about Jung's involvement with the Nazis. I have cited several sources and tried to remain as neutral as possible, marking it as something that is debated among scholars and trying to show both sides supported with facts. This topic is indeed quite controversial, but I feel that it can not be overlooked on a page about Jung. If anyone feels differently, we can use the talk page to discuss. JKillah 16:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Re CONTROVERSIAL. "Controversial", JKillah? Then please explain how far Jung (a Swiss citizen living in neutral Switzerland) would have had to go in his active support of Nazi Germany so that Wikipedia NPOV would allow us to call him a Nazi. What more could the Herr Professor have done without actually running afoul of Swiss law? Name one thing! --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 20:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Relax, Bruno. This is an editing community, not the inquisition. --Blainster 04:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Re INQUISITION. In what way exactly am I interfering with the editing of what you call the editing community, Blainster? Did I make any changes in the article? Did I suggest or advocate any such changes? How many times do I have to repeat that in my opinion the article ought to reflect what is considered to be knowledge by exactly that editing community? If even a commentary is too much for you, Blainster, I can't help you. Well, maybe in a small way I can: Seeing how you and some other people here react to criticism in any form, shape or manner, it isn't exactly the smartest move on your part to bring up the word Inquisition.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 15:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have moved a couple of paras in here because I don't think they present a neutral or well researched viewpoint:

Some scholars feel that Jung's reversal was not enough to compensate for his complicity in the "nazification" of pscyhoanalysis. Jung published several articles while working at the Göring Institute that claimed superiority for the "Aryan race", in particular that the Aryan race had a more "creative unconscious" than the Jewish race. Jung wrote a commentary at that time that can be considered anti-Semitic:

"The Jew, who is something of a nomad, has never yet created a cultural form of his own and as far as we can see never will, since all his instincts and talents require a more or less civilized nation to act as host for their development … In my opinion, it has been a grave error in medical psychology up to now to apply Jewish categories … to German and Slavic Christendom. " - Carl Jung [2] (par. 27)

In the first paragraph, a strong assertion is made, stating as fact that Jung published certain articles; I think an external link is required here to back up that assertion.

In the second paragraph, the quote attributed to Jung is from an article that attributes that quote to Jung but gives no reference. If you are going to say that Jung said x, it is vital that you reference exactly where Jung said x. If you don't, then the best you can say is 'person x claims that Jung said y'.

I'd like to add that I have no interest in brushing any complicity Jung may have had in Nazism under the carpet; I just think that allegations of such a serious nature really need to be made in more academically vigorous manner than they currently stand in these two paragraphs.

Please bring these paras up to standard and then re-insert them into the main article. Kantiandream 14:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to say that more evidence in regarding the labelling of Jung as an anti-Semite would require more evidence. Placing recognition of anti-Semitism in a historical figure is destructive in their legacy. I suggest that there be a removal of the shared sub-title Jung being an anti-Semitist in the article, or more evidence be attributed leading to Jung's association of pertaining characteristics in hating those of Jewish descent.Aeryck89 23:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence in this section is not appropriate. It would be a result of inference if one were to think Jung believed in Nazism, and to suggest he was cooperating with them because of a shared goal doesn't really aid the section at all. On a related topic I would imagine that mein kampf does make interesting reading for a psychoanalyst.

Jung on Hitler (cont.)

Can anyone confirm or deny this supposed quotations from the net:

In 1937 Jung said of Hitler: 'He is a medium, German policy is not made; it is revealed through Hitler. He is the mouthpiece of the Gods of old... He is the Sybil, the Delphic oracle."

Found it in a published source. Editing the article now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.162.99.126 (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition of the Shadow

Just a question here, but according to other sources I have read, the Shadow is not necessarily the diametrical opposite of the person's general character, as seen in the case here. It is defined as amoral, being the remnant within our soul of our prehistoric animal past, the last of the instinctual habits which we can do nothing about, do not understand and can never get rid of. Because animals are not usually understood as self- conscious in the usual sense of the word, they are not usually considered either barbaric or gentle within their definitions, animals just are, and thus came the definition of the Shadow as the amoral aspect of the psyche. However they are usually represented in apparently dark or unpleasant figures in our dreams, for they often disturb us with apparent ruthlessness, yet at the same time fearfully appears to be something which we can never deal with, whether courageous or else. Luthinya 11:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Philip Pullman and Carl Jung

Does anyone know if the famous author Philip Pullman has an exceeding interest upon the works of Jung within psychology? Observe, for instance, his description and application of the concept of the individual's daemon. It is drawing very close to Jung's own use of the animus and the anima! Luthinya 12:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The concept of an "inner demon" should not be entirely attributed to Carl Jung, even though he certainly "brought it to the masses". Ajaxkroon 08:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Jung & thermodynamics

Main article: psychodynamics

I'm rather new to Jung. I know that Freud tired to model the dynamic mechanism of the psyche on the 1st law of thermodynamics (related to conservation of mental events) and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (related to mental driving forces and conflicts of energy); does anyone know what books I should read to find such application by Jung? For example, in an introductory discussion of "the shadow" I found the following: “The person who suppresses the animal side of his nature may become civilized, but he does so at the expense of decreasing the motive power for spontaneity, creativity, strong emotions, and deep insights.” (Hall, C.S. and Nordby, V. J. (1999). A Primer in Jungian Psychology. New York: Meridian.) Subsequently, for example, what core book would I find Jung discussing such concepts as: driving force, motive power, spontaneity, entropy, psychic energy, closed system, etc.? Thanks if you can help: --Sadi Carnot 17:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Jung & chemistry

Does anyone know the date and source of the following Jung quote:

Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 19:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


It should be Modern Man in Search of a Soul. The section, I believe, is on the aims of psychotherapy.

-Jin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.135.163.234 (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization?

should "analytical psychology" be capitalized? i dont think so. changing... - Bagel7

The Cara

Can someone help me understand the mysterious "the Cara " entries? Why is § 2.2 (which is relative to the relationship between Jung, Nazism and anti-semitism) titled "Jung and the Cara".

Why is § 3.2, which is about "The shadow", bear in parentheses the mysterious caption "Fifth Business and The Cara"

My Google search only delivered the following:

What is Anam Cara?(Spiritual Oracle)

"According to Celtic spiritual tradition, the soul shines all around the body like a luminous cloud. When you are very open ~ appreciative and trusting ~ with another person, your two souls flow together. This deeply felt bond with another person means you have found your anam cara, or "Soul Friend." Your anam cara always beholds your light and beauty, and accepts you for who you truly are. In Celtic spirituality, the anam cara friendship awakens the fullness and mystery of your life. You are joined in an ancient and eternal union with humanity that cuts across all barriers of time, convention, philosophy, and definition. When you are blessed with an anam cara, the Irish believe, you have arrived at that most sacred place: ~HOME~"

Is there any connection? Am I on the wrong track? Why such mysterious input, with no explanation whatsoever in the main article? --Miguel de Servet 23:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As nobody replied my questions about "the Cara" entries (see above), I have decided that they were deliberate obfuscation of Jung's links with Nazism and anti-Semitism, and "cleaned up" the main article accordingly.--Miguel de Servet 18:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Memories, Dreams, Reflections

So we can be clear on this, MDR is an autobiography, edited by Jaffe. The work started out as a biography, one which Jung was reluctant to have done for various reasons concerning feasibility. However, at some point, Jung became enthused, and started to write large chunks of it himself. As a result of this, Jaffe slipped into an editorial role, allowing Jung to tell his own story.

All this is explained in the Introduction of the book itself. Bungling, if you have strong reasons for thinking it should be noted as otherwise, please explain them here. In the meantime, I've reverted the article. Kantiandream 08:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I will refrain from general exposition regarding my -- thoroughly justified -- alteration which does not necessitate "reasons". Perhaps the secondary literature on Jung in context would be the veriest suggestion, but by whatever means let us not waste our time on such a boring topic... too bad the "big guns" died before he could irradicate such "autification". Gruss, Bungling 10:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't understand anything after the first sentence, sorry. Justification does necessitate reasons; justification is built out of reasons. I'm happy with not wasting time arguing over it. But please, don't change the title of a sub-section I've created for the purpose of talking to you just so you can make your point. Kantiandream 11:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I just changed the wording of the book cover description to include "partially autobiographical", before I came across this discussion here. "Autobiographical" implies it was entirely written by Jung, but then again I am not entirely sure just how much was written by whom. — Sam 00:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Jung and tarot

I removed the reference to Jung using tarot. If he ever did, the evidence is lacking, although he was certainly aware of it, and his institute once considered using it as part of a study of several divination methods. The book titled The Jungian Tarot and Its Archetypal Imagery just uses Jungian methods to analyze tarot and does not claim that Jung used tarot. This tarot forum discusses the matter and finds no clear evidence that he used it. --Blainster 19:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent anonymous edits

I traced back and found a number of edits (starting with [3]) that seemed out of place. I put html comments around them, will someone who is more familiar with the subject please review his edits and remove the comments? --GargoyleMT 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The Transcendental Function

There has been very little mention in the analytical psychology pages of the role of the transcendental function as a bridge between the ego and the shadow, even though this function tertiary "third" function was one of Jung's most researched topics.

Its "transcendent function" not transcendental. just fyi Majicshrink (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Carl Gustav Jung?

Why is this article named "Carl Jung" but not "Carl Gustav Jung" or "C. G. Jung" as the person is universally known? Most of his books usually give C.G.Jung as the author and bibliographic entries in libraries are usually accordingly titled or give "Carl Gustav Jung". So why have this confusing title "Carl Jung"? This case is in many ways similar to H.G.Wells case. Also I would like to draw attention (again) to the fact that the article does not start with the biography of the person but instead with his theory (which anyway has a separate article devoted to). This is not exactly described in WP:MOSBIO, but the general idea is understandable from the guideline. → Aethralis 23:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Shamdasani

I have removed the paranthetical remark asserting Sonu Shamdasani's Noll critique is "at times mean spirited" as it is a subjecting value judgement Fyfey 00:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)fyfey

confusion

hey. in the second paragraph of the Jung's Life section it says that he fell out with someone. who was it? it is very confusing.minamato 18:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll assume it was Freud. They disagreed about the unconscious and they fell out.

there is a book out about Freud and Jung in America called Interpretation of a Murder. It is a 'faction' so it is a story based within a boundary of cultural facts including their relationship, which was fairly rocky. I think. I haven't read it but perhaps it should be mentioned? 15:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read the novel in question and to be honest I don't really think it deserves anything more than a breif mention. It seems very much as a pro-Freudian novel and because of Jung's relationship with him when they went to America this portrays Jung very harshly (at times makes him seem like a fanatic). There is even an author's comment at the end which basically says that the novel's setting was accurate, some of the characters had the same names as real world theorists and in some cases there is theory overlap. But it is implicit that a lot of the discussions were heavily dramatised and traits/ what they said - or might have said at different times - was subject to artistic licence. If you want a good insight into Freud and Jung's relationship there are many editions of the letters they exchanged. There are even letters which are before and after the journey to New York which sheds some light on what happened. Ex con87 (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

there is a disagreement in the text

in the section Jung's life it says that Jung sent Freud a copy of his book The Psychology of Dementia Praecox. in the section Jung and Freud it implies that Studies in Word Association was the first work that Jung sent to Freud. which was it? this is very confusing and distressing. --minamato 18:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit: it seems likely that Studies in Word Association was in fact the first work which he sent to Freud as it is listed as his first work kin the Jung bibliography section. could anyone confirm this? --minamato 19:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Dune and the collective Unconscious

i seem to be posting on this article a lot today. i noticed that it said that the collective Unconscious is a main theme in the novel dune. could someone give me link for evidence to this? thanks.

--minamato 20:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Freud and Jung

Can someone explain to me how this sentence is neutral?: "In effect, Jung's unconscious, as opposed to Freud's, serves a very positive role: the engine of the collective unconscious essential to human society and culture." Acornwithwings 00:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about the subject matter, but I would interpret the sentence as: 'Jung thinks the unconscious does good important things. Freud doesn't think that' Seems like a neutural statement of their opinions to me (assuming it's correct). What was your complaint with it? -Spyforthemoon 22:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
If this was just a statement of Jung's point of view, that would be fine. However, this sentence states an opinion (that Jung's unconscious is positive, it calls the collective unconscious essential, etc) which is not attributed to Jung or anyone else. In effect, it by its wording and context it appears to endorse Jung's side of the argument. Jung thought that Freud's theory was negative and his own was positive; Wikipedia has no opinion on the matter. Acornwithwings 06:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I re-read that whole paragraph a few times, and the entire thing could probably use a combing-over. I feel a little unqualified to do it, knowing next to nothing about the subject matter. Do you think you could give it a shot? -Spyforthemoon 18:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I fiddled with it a bit; removed the "in effect" sentence and tried to npov it up a little. Unfortunately i can't do a whole lot since i don't really know a whole lot about jung either. I think Freud's side of the argument should be elaborated a bit.Acornwithwings 07:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I ended up editing the entire section. however, as i'm doing this in the middle of the night my sense of written english may not be the best anyway. most notably, i removed the information about the paper that was presented at the talk at which freud fainted, as it didn't seem to have much to do with the subject at hand. does anyone know at for what reason freud and jung met in munich? someone who knows more about this should look this section over.Acornwithwings 08:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

influences on popular culture

I broke up this rather large section into sub-categories, and made a rough effort to sort by date within that. This section could probably use some pruning, incorporating the most notable items into the rest of the article. Spyforthemoon 22:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone oppose moving this section to its own page? It's large and many of the entries really don't add much to the article's content. — Sam 22:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move.--Húsönd 22:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


Carl Jung → C. G. Jung – This move request was listed by Str1977 at WP:RM, and I'm now completing the request by putting this survey here. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Oppose. Most biographical web pages seem to use the title "Carl Jung". Most biographies at Amazon reference "Carl Jung" or "Carl G. Jung" or "Carl Gustaf Jung", though many, most notably those that are autographical, use "C. G. Jung". However, the most common reference seems to have Carl in the name, and there is certainly not enough evidence to indicate that "C. G. Jung" is clearly the more common reference. --Serge 21:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless the subject almost exclusively went by their intials in thier public face (like C. S. Lewis), it is more appropriate to have the article at a fuller name-either Carl Jung or Carl Gustaf Jung (if he went by that a substantial number of times). Between the two, it is clear that he went by Carl Jung more so then Carl Gustaf Jung. Agne 01:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The most common place for the initials-only listing is on a book; when people talk of the man, they speak of Carl Jung, not C.G. Jung. (I say this as a bookseller married to a psychologist.) --Orange Mike 03:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are very few individuals who are best know only by their initials. Agne mentions C. S. Lewis and the only other that I can think of is W.E.B. Du Bois (you know, I was half expecting to be able to find something like Category:People known by their initials). older ≠ wiser 03:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    J. D. Salinger, E. E. Cummings, and J. R. R. Tolkien spring to mind. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    T. S. Eliot, too. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Carl Jung is the most common. 70.51.10.220 07:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. But the title should probably be Carl Gustav Jung. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Should be here, but with Carl Gustav Jung as a redirect and in the fist line. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose why should it be changed? it fine the way it is.minamato 22:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support See his books, German wikipedia and scientific literature. This article should be named either C.G.Jung or Carl Gustav Jung. Carl Jung is clearly incomplete. Cf. J. R. R. Tolkien and H. G. Wells → Aethralis 12:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well, mostly used in literature (original and later books, citations in scientific publications, matter in universities) is "C.G.Jung" (as shorted form) or "Carl Gustav Jung". Please note that in scientific publications it is used "Jung, C.G." form. I think in general it is better to write full names, in this case - "Carl Gustav Jung" and make redirections from shorted forms. Unex 18:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose the change per previous arguments--Blainster 22:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This really should be uncontroversial, as there is no notable person called "Carl Jung". There is CG Jung or Carl Gust Jung but no Carl Jung. Str1977 (smile back) 14:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Since I was asked I try to clarify my point: I support moving the article to either C. G. Jung or Carl Gustav Jung. Either is better than Carl Jung. Str1977 (smile back) 00:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I've always known him as Carl Jung, along with most people I talk to. Voretustalk 15:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Google test results indicate a toss-up: 

Results 1 - 10 of about 966,000 for "Carl Jung"
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,060,000 for "C. G. Jung"

--Serge 21:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The short form is popular simply due to abbreviations used in literature citation. People are not generally known by their initials, so the Google test is misleading. --Blainster 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
People generally are not, but look at the literature at the end of the article. This would be like an article dealing with John Tolkien. → Aethralis 22:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien is virtually unknown as John Tolkien, and Jung is commonly referred to as Carl Jung. Note the popularity of the references in google despite the use of the initialed version on his books. Note the difference in the google test results, for example: 

Results 1 - 10 of about 10,400 for "john tolkien".
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,320,000 for "jrr tolkien".
Results 1 - 10 of about 950,000 for "carl jung".
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,060,000 for "cg jung".

Note that the ratio of "carl jung" to "cg jung" is about 1:1, while for Tolkien it's 1:223! There is no comparison. An article on Carl Jung is nothing like an article on John Tolkien. --Serge 00:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What is common is not always necessarily correct. Cf. Alhazen and Alhacen. I'm not supporting some hidden agenda of mine here, but only the idea that in most other languages (including German) his name appears as Carl Gustav or C. G.. So having Carl Jung is only cementing common usage paying no heed to accurateness. This is in my opinion in the same lines as "John" for "Johannes". → Aethralis 07:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Where is Carl Gustav Jung commonly referred to as Carl Jung? I wouldn't know whom you were talking about unless you added famous psychologists. Having this title is plainly ridiculous. Str1977 (smile back) 10:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Have you actually tried looking at any of the Google search results? There are many pages that refer to "Carl Jung". Many of the pages are even within the web sites of institutions or organizations that are title "CG Jung whatever'", but they often include a bio page or other mentions of the person and refer to him as "Carl Jung". older ≠ wiser 13:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
So because some websites use "Carl Jung" we have to do that too, even if he is known word wide by his full name? And even if they do, what does the fact that they title in these sites is CG or Carl Gustav Jung tell us? Once he is introduced by the famous form, it is clear who this Carl Jung fellow is. But without such an introduction you could just as well write John Dough. Str1977 (smile back) 15:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you are entitled to your opinions, although it is not supported by common usage. The point that he is referred to as "Carl Jung" even by numerous instituions that are very well aware of his formal name is pretty clear evidence that he is commonly known as "Carl Jung". Anyone who knows anything about Jung will recogize the name "Carl Jung" and there is no question of ambiguity, so there is little complellling reason to use another name. older ≠ wiser 21:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The most common form, according to Google, is just Carl Jung. Until this discussion started, I'd never heard of his middle name; and this is the English-language Wikipedia, so the fact that in some countries he may be referred to as "Carl Gustav" is not relevant. --Orange Mike 22:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Have you actually had a look at the Google figures, as presented above?
Since when is 950,000 for "carl jung" more than 1,060,000 for "cg jung"? (Not counting the figures for Carl Gustav).
And even the picture right next to our headline says "C. G. Jung"!
Str1977 (smile back) 22:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Have you actually examined any of the Google Results? First, 950,000 vs 1,060,000 is a statistical dead heat as far as Google Results are concerned. Second, there are quite a lot of sites for institutions and organizations with name CG Jung. All of these sites show up prominently in the results, although they are only indirectly about the person. And as I noted already, many of these institutions also have pages in which they explicitly refer to the person as "Carl Jung". older ≠ wiser 22:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The figures above: 1) are multi-lingual; and 2) don't match the results I get when I google. When I google for English-language results, I get:
Results 1 - 10 of about 894,000 English pages for  "Carl Jung"
Results 1 - 10 of about 533,000 English pages for  "C. G. Jung"
Results 1 - 10 of about 202,000 English pages for  "Carl Gustav Jung"

--Orange Mike 02:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggested merger

  • Oppose - It has apparently been suggested that this article be merged with Jungian psychology. I think this is absurd, and cannot imagine why anyone would think it a good idea. The man is not the work, the work is not the man. --Orange Mike 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for what I hope would be obvious reasons. The merge suggestion was added without comment or explanation. I'm just going to remove it because honestly it's a bit silly. If anyone wants to readd it please go ahead. Voretustalk 16:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, though perhaps some thoughtful reorganization is in order. There is perhaps some lack of clarity and unnecessary redundancy with this page, Jungian psychology, and Analytical psychology. Jcbutler 18:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Jungian psychology is not Jung. Each article is more than long enough to stand on its own merit. Doczilla 03:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


I don't know- sure, the work is not the man, etc but it doesn't seem to be standard practice on wikipedia for the two to be seperate. it's certainly not true for Freud or any of the other psychoanalysts. jung's theory should be summarized on this page and then concepts that require more explanation can have their own pages (most already seem to). Acornwithwings 23:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggested merger part II

I re-added the merge tag, because I don't think it was taken seriously and I think it should be. Here are the reasons why (which I also listed on the Jungian psychology talk page): 1. Every other thinker (psychoanalysts in particular) have one page for their bio AND a summary of their theory. 2. There is already a basic description of his theory on his page, and more could still be added if necessary. 3. Every concept on Jungian psychology that needs more explanation than it does or would on the bio page already has its own page. Discuss. Acornwithwings 17:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but there isn't a Freud page, a Freudian psychology page AND a psychoanalysis page, whereas there is a Jung page, a Jungian psychology page and an Analytic psychology page. Everything on Jungian psychology should be covered by the Jung page and the Analytic psychology page. Acornwithwings 01:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger. Jungian psychology is not Jung. Each article is long enough to stand on its own merit. There are plenty of precedents for this. Doczilla 03:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Could you give examples? thx Acornwithwings 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Psychodynamics and Sigmund Freud. Pavlovian conditioning and Ivan Pavlov. Individual psychology and Alfred Adler. Reality theory and William Glasser. Gravity and Isaac Newton. Evolution and Charles Darwin. Relativity and Albert Einstein. However, Jungian psychology should be merged into Analytical psychology. User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 10:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose It's silly as there is much in Analytical Psych (aka Jungian psych) that is way beyond the scope of the Carl Jung article. --DanielCD 13:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

as i mentioned above, my problem isn't that there is a seperate page for his theory but that there seem to be two seperate pages for his theory (analytical psychology and jungian psychology), and one of them is this weird inbetween page that could be integrated into both carl jung and analytical psych. i think the idea that jungian psych and analytic psych should be merged is probably more appropriate- i will remove the merge tag from here and put it on those two pages and we can discuss it from there. Acornwithwings 01:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Jungian psychology has been merged into Analytical psychology, so this discussion is now moot. Acorn, thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. --Jcbutler 15:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism?

I'd like to see more information in this article about how his theories are regarded by psychologists today. Surely, like Freud, Jung must have his supporters and detractors. If anyone has any info on this, please add it.

I think those criticisms would go on the article for Jungian psychology, not on the bio article about the man himself. --Orange Mike 02:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Every other thinker that has a criticism section has it on their bio page, which is also usually contains at least a summary of their theory. I don't see why Jung shouldn't as well. Acornwithwings 23:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it is very important to ad. Jung isn't really regarded as a scientist anymore. It's nice to see so much fanaticism here, but it's hardly encyclopedic. Even modern psychologists don't use Jung's theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.52.159 (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

'Hero Archetype' seemingly out of place?

The whole section entitled 'Hero Archetype' seems tacked on and without precedent. - 217.205.110.55 00:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

maybe not important...

Just for the records, I paste here an entry that has just been suppressed from 1907.

  • May 13 - In a letter from Carl G. Jung to Sigmund Freud (one of several letters exchanged), Jung warns Freud that they are both criticized in a review of Jung's new book in Gaupp's Zentralblatt.[1]

It may be not an important date and/or fact (as said in the comment of the edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1907&diff=106888871&oldid=106605816), but I don't know if this can be objectively said. I think a true information should never be suppressed from an Encyclopedia which aims at being as complete as possible (even though readability may come first...).— MFH:Talk 22:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Jung, C.G. (1907). Letter from C. G. Jung to Sigmund Freud, May 13, 1907" (preview), Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, 2006, webpage: PEP-Jung-1907-0513.

Jung's Analysis of Hitler as Possessed by the Aryan Unconscious, Inspiration of Miguel Serrano's Ideas

In several interviews and articles of the interwar period Jung analyzes Hitler as possessed by the collective Aryan unconscious.

"Hitler is a spiritual vessel, a demi-divinity; even better, a myth. Mussolini is a man."

"Hitler seemed like the 'double' of a real person, as if Hitler the man might be hiding inside like an appendix, and deliberately so concealed in order not to disturb the mechanism ... You know you could never talk to this man; because there is nobody there ... It is not an individual; it is an entire nation."

"His voice is that of at least 78 million Germans. He must shout, even in private conversation ... The voice he hears is that of the collective unconscious of his race."

Source: C.G. Jung Speaking: Interviews and Encounters, edited by William McGuire and R.F.C. Hull (London: Thames and Hudson, 1978), pp. 91-93, 115-135, 136-40. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.149.176.173 (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Relevant? The Philemon Foundation

I don't see the relevance of this section in this article. Seems selfpromotional... But, since this is my first time wiki'ing, I won't delete it yet - I may have misunderstood something... Any comments?

--Crimse 17:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation?

I can't seem to find the IPA for the character ']' anywhere... was this put there by mistake? Iansmcl 01:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The brackets "[, ]" seem to be a way of specifying (enclosing) IPA characters, and are not themselves elements of IPA. --Blainster 20:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Section ordering

This article should be primarily about the person CG Jung , rather than his psychology, so I believe the biography should have first position in the article. --Blainster 20:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I would like to see the analytical psychology information cut down quite a bit and biographical information expanded. — Sam 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Regional punctuation/spelling

Currently this article is written in a mixture of American style (that is, punctuation inside double quotes, use of z in words like realize, etc.) and British style. According to the manual of style, whichever style was used first should be used, or if the topic has particular significance in a certain anglophone region, its regional style should be used. Looking back when this article was named Carl Gustav Jung, its earliest recorded edit uses American style of spelling (see "conceptualize" and "'a priori.'"). Before a change is implemented, however, I want to give a chance for discussion. Since Jung was primarily associated with Europe and thus England, this might be a factor to consider in the decision for a particular style. — Sam 00:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that being Swiss makes a British spelling and punctuation style more appropriate than an American style, and I say this as a Briton. TeamCoachingNetwork 09:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured that was kind of a stretch, but I wanted to make sure there was an agreement before doing such a change. — Sam 14:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

geocities external link

A geocities link to a website hosting an article by Mark Lee has been added several times by a user. The website is a personal web page of soemone who is not a noted author on carl Jung. It is an unpolished and poorly written piece that fails our guidelines by not meeting the general intent of the sections on what should be linked to, and specifically failing number 11 of Links to be avoided - Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. We're an encyclopedia - we're not the place to promote fringe theories. If this has traction in academic circles we should find appropriate verification and include it in the article. -- Siobhan Hansa 17:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If this was something other than a fringe opinion, it would seem it would be found elsewhere than a Geocities page that is largely unfinished. jwadeo 18:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

On the geocities external link

I have checked the guidelines and think this link is highly relevant also I want to add that I haven’t found a better article which tackles “'ontogenesis recapitulates phylogenesis' postulate” that Jung develops as his main tour de force in 'Symbols of Transformation', There are also some extremely important quotes about Jung's Nazi involvement. I think the Link is worth just for those quotes (check the notes) I think they are highly relevant to the whole corpus. I am sure they cannot be included in the main Encyclopedia article but a link serves good in such a case.

I suggest the direct quotes from Jungs on his Nazi involvement should be included in the main article. They are after all rare quotes and very difficult to find.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wildcatno2 (talk • contribs).

This is pretty much the same as you posted on my userpage but does not address the points I make above -
The website is a personal web page of soemone who is not a noted author on carl Jung. It is an unpolished and poorly written piece that fails our guidelines by not meeting the general intent of the sections on what should be linked to, and specifically failing number 11 of Links to be avoided - Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. We're an encyclopedia - we're not the place to promote fringe theories. If this has traction in academic circles we should find appropriate verification and include it in the article.
On the quotes - we need a reliable source that puts them in context. Otherwise it's original research about what is significant in his life. -- Siobhan Hansa 17:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that Wikipedia makes a habit of linking to someone's unfinished, unpublished, unreviewed college essay. jwadeo 17:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
reliable source -unfinished, unpublished, unreviewed college essay
what could be more reliable then Jung's own words.
Further they are from the article he published immediately after joining the General Society for Psychotherapy.
to quote
"Jung published "The State of Psychotherapy Today" in 1934. We know that Jung had joined the General Society for ::Psychotherapy in 1928 and was elected vice-president in 1930 (Emil Kretschmer was president). When the Nazis came to power, Kretschmer refused to align (Gleichschaltung) the society and its journal Zentralblatt fuer Psychotherapie with Nazi beliefs, so he resigned. Jung took over as president of the society on June 21, 1933. Part of the president’s position included the editing of the journal. "
Its understandable Jwadeo when it relates to the main article, but please explain what do you mean by 'original research' which cannot be included even as a link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wildcatno2 (talk • contribs).
We aren't writing our own critique of Jung, we're summarizing the significant opinions of experts in the field. If recognized authorities on Jung have commented on his use of this language, we can use that as a source in the article. What we should not be doing is writing new content that does not reflect previously published opinion. -- Siobhan Hansa 18:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
What we should not be doing is writing new content that does not reflect previously published opinion
Ok that makes sense, but still I think by censoring Jung’s Own words in favor for an Ideological outlook does not go well with the Wiki Spirit.
If I am not wrong the guidelines nowhere says that Authors words have to be substantiated by certified authority.
I think you need to do a bit explaining as to why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wildcatno2 (talk • contribs).
Please see our neutral point of view policy. We are an encyclopedia - we summarize the significant opinions of experts on a subject. We do not simply republish everything Jung has written (that would be a project for Wikibooks). In choosing what we put in the article on Jung we refer to experts on Jung. -- Siobhan Hansa 18:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, but If you read the material published under "Jung, Nazism and anti-Semitism" and to some extent "Influence" they inform nothing. The AA piece gives no direct link to actual source and "One of his first acts as president was to modify the constitution so that German Jewish doctors could maintain their membership as individual members even though they were excluded from all German medical societies." sounds more as a a piece of shoddy research apart from being totally false.

So how does "neutral point of view policy" explain this. I think what we expect from the article is to give a wholesome and authentic picture. I was just checking some other wiki pages for example Freud and they are really well written and fully substantiated. Anyway I have asked the author to give us a well written piece just on Jung's Nazi involvement which better informs us in matters related to 1930's, his most creative period.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wildcatno2 (talk • contribs).

I am not going to revert this since I am at my revert limit for this article. However, you are past the 3RR rule. You keep pushing your POV against the consensus of the other editors in this article by placing a link to an unsubstantiated and poorly sourced geocities page. In many regards, your actions constitute vandalism.
I searched for any other material written by the author on this subject and it did not pull up anymore information. I seriously wouldn't regard him as the expert opinion. Unless other sources of this information are found, the link should be pulled and readdressed at another time in the event sources do appear. Generally, information that is found to be accurate and valid will have multiple sources. Until that point is reached, it is a mere opinion piece. jwadeo 20:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok I am understanding what you are saying, but then going by your own words "Generally, information that is found to be accurate and valid will have multiple sources...it is a mere opinion piece" that doesn't seem to answer the fact that the piece under "Jung, Nazism and anti-Semitism" "One of his first acts as president was to modify the constitution so that German Jewish doctors could maintain their membership as individual members even though they were excluded from all German medical societies." does not provide its source link and does not in anyway substantiate its claims and appears to me to be inaccurate and false.
On the other hand we have a piece which quotes Jung himself and within the context; Are Jung own written articles not sufficient to explain itself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wildcatno2 (talk • contribs).
If you want to keep it, find a better source. If it is Jung's own words as you say, then you shouldn't have much of an issue finding alternate sources, right? You seem to forget that the article piece you reference is nothing more than an unfinished piece. The link you insist on referencing is nothing more than a secondary source - one by a non-expert. Furthermore, the section "Jung, Nazism and anti-Semitism" contains multiple sources. jwadeo 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, the link violates at least four of the tenants of external links that should be avoided. Namely "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.", "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.", "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.", and "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.". jwadeo 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
As Jwadeo says - if you can improve the article using reliable sources you should do so but that is a separate issue from the geocities link you are adding - which does not meet our standards and does not improve the article. Jung's own words can be useful in the article but they must be used within a context that reflects a neutral point view. Words can easily be presented so as to give the impression of a significance or meaning they do not hold, hence our requirement to reflect the significant opinions of experts in the field. -- Siobhan Hansa 20:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


BTSA

The recently-added entry on BTSA reads like promotional material rather than an encyclopedic description. The change also accidentally broke the link to the MBTI article, which I have repaired. Would the contributor consider writing a page describing the instrument and linking to that instead? TeamCoachingNetwork 09:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed text

Since the following was deleted from the article in this edit, I place it here for further consideration:

The main points of contention are that if Roland Hazard was under the care of Jung at all, it was only briefly, and that a quotation about spirituality attributed to Jung ("The only radical cure for dipsomania is religiomania") appears recognizably in another book that inspired the early AAers, Varieties of Religious Experience by William James, which was published before Roland Hazard's reported meeting with Jung, casting doubt on the reliability of Hazard's recollection[4]

__meco 08:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In popular culture

I moved the massive section on Jung in popular culture to its own article (Carl Jung in popular culture). The article was nominated for deletion, and the consensus came to be delete. I have saved the text and merged a heavily trimmed version of it back here. I've removed loosely related entries, such as Jung's name appearing in a song or movie, etc., and entries concerning Jung's theories rather than Jung himself like references to the collective unconscious in video games. The remaining entries should still be combed through. In an attempt to keep the section from being repopulated with less relevant entries again, I have added an HTML comment that reads "Note: please consider an entry's contribution to this article before adding it. Loosely-related similarities should not be added, nor should speculative connections. For cultural references to Jung's theories, consider adding them to the relevant article." I have also added the reference improve template. Our goal should be high-quality references in this section for now on to prevent speculative and irrelevant additions in the future. Feel free to comment on any of my removals or anything I brought up here. — Sam 15:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jungian psychology

Category:Jungian psychology is being nominated for a rename to Category:Analytical psychology. Comments are welcome at its discussion page. Samuel Grant 18:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Jung's influence on popular culture: Music

The section on popular culture notes a number of pop musicians, including Peter Gabriel, who were influenced by Jung. Am I right in thinking in that an album by The Police, as in the group headed by Sting, entitled "Synchronicity" got its title from Jung? If so, this should be added here. ACEOREVIVED 19:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that song is obviously based on Jungs ideas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.173.122 (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

For those of us unable to read IPA, is his name pronounced "Hung" or "Jung"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.161.164 (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Yoong" - Nunh-huh 20:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I have heard it "Yung," "Yoong,", and any other number of ways. I asked a psychology professor of mine once, who was certain it was "Joong." I think this pronunciation has some support with Jungians, but even then there is doubt. I am still not sure. Samuel Grant (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The correct pronunciation would be "Yung" with a VERY slight gutteral accent.

CWatchman (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yoonk.Lestrade (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Jung gave a protesting message against Nazi.

(I apologize if my English appears queer.There might also be mistakes in the spelling.).

I feel there are views that emphathsizes a negative tone in describing Jung's life and opinions ,in the name of ‘neutral point of view.’ They try to relate Jung with Nazi's name,and try to make him appear as if he was supporting the cruelty and violence. I do not hold that view.

There are writings by Jung,[1]before W.W.Ⅱ,where he was warning about the deterioration of the intellectual judgment and morality of people who act in groups,and the outburst of violence that was unconscious to them until then.

C.G.Jung wrote after the war[2]that because of the same sort of speeches he made in Germany,1933,and in Yale University,1937,Nazi marked him as ‘Cautious’.He wrote that because they read the translation published in 1940,they blacklisted him and burned all of his writings they could find.

I do not have the copies of the Terry Lectures,but I did check ‘Die　Beziehungen zwishen dem Ich und dem Unbewβ ten’（original version was published in 1928）from which he also excerpted.The lines were found in Chapter 1,second section.Both of the content matched.Therefore,I believe there is a certain reason to judge that the other two lectures quoted in‘Aufstaze zur Zeitgeschichte’are also accurately excerpted.

If you doubt the accuracy of the excerpts from the lectures made in 1933,1937,suspecting that he had changed the contents from the original version to protect his public image （or something）,then please look up and check the original version of Terry lectures he delivered in 1937,at Yale University.

In the speeches of 1933 and 1937 that he quoted in Aufsatze zur Zeitgeschichte,he was protesting against the ‘ｓlavery by the government’and the ‘caos and insanity’of the mob,because of the very fact that the people were in the mob,and strongly being influenced by it. At least these kind of messages seems to be the ones that were not for but ‘against’ the policy of Nazi.

If you consider that those are only indications,not proofs to show that he was against Nazi's views,and still consider that he was a Nazi-sympathizer,then there are writings left that states more directly about Hitler,in ‘Wotan’(1936).

Jung uses the word ‘Wotan’ in assocciation with the decription of the situations going on then around Hitler,that he drives men to crazy passion.Jung went on to explain that the man himself is also being driven by the passion, and that the situation is rushing to a ‘dangerous’ state.


Enefproe (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ C.G.Jung‘Die　Beziehungen zwishen dem Ich und dem Unbewβ ten’,originally published in1928
  2. ^ C.G.Jung‘Aufstaze zur Zeitgeschichte’,1946

The Red Book is coming

Stephan Hoeller in an interview on the Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio Show in July 2008 (I think) stated that Jung's legendary (though not mentioned in the present article) Red Book in which he made all his notes during the years 1912/13 and 1916, and from which adapted excerpts were released as Seven Sermons to the Dead, is slated for release shortly (with the English translation scheduled for publishing in early 2009), after the Jung family has rescinded their withholding this manuscript. According to Hoeller this event is likely to cause a schism among the followers of Jung as a scientifically-oriented psychologist as this event is likely to effect a significant shift in the general perception of Jung with an added emphasis on his importance as a mystic, a change that is going to alienate many Jungian psychotherapists as such a change in public perception will make his appeal as a scientifically based psychologist diminish.

Perhaps this article should prepare for this upcoming event by at least presenting the Red Book's existence? __meco (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Where it's relevant enough for mention. Personally I think we should be more concerned with getting basic, accurate, and sourceable biographical information in first; there is still a lot lacking. Samuel Grant (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
In any case, an article has been written, Red Book (Jung). It could need some expansion. __meco (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Date Problem?

This statment is located in the Relationship with Freud section: "...more than six years and ended shortly before World War I in May 1910." Something must be wrong here, perhaps just a typo in the date.

S. Randall (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Location mistake

"When Carl was six months old, Paul Jung acquired a position at a better parish in Laufen and the family moved there." This location is wrong according to Aniela Jaffé (1965). Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Jung remembers from that time the Rhine falls and "the litle castele of Woerth", which is located on the right side of Rhine, very close to Schloss Laufen. The right location is Schloss Laufen near the town of Schaffhausen in northern Switzerland and close to the German border (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine_Falls). I would like this mistake to be corrected. Thanks, Lucian Dragut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucian Dragut (talk • contribs) 19:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Synchronicity and modern physicists

The article contains the following claim: Synchronicity as an alternative to the Causality Principle, an idea which has even influenced modern physicists - the note refers to an item coauthored by Jung and Pauli, however the quoted phrase implies that physicists other than Pauli have been influened - is there a source for this? Autarch (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

“It was Einstein who first started me off thinking about a possible relativity of time as well as space, and their psychic conditionality.” (Progoff 1973: 151)
Progoff, Ira (1973). Jung, Synchronicity, and Human Destiny. New York: Julian Press.
(here is the source, use it as you wish) Twipley (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Near-Death Experience

it seems to me that it is an important (missing) part of the biography. Twipley (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There are many things about Jung's "inner life" in his (auto)biography that I myself would find embarassing for an encyclopedia. I once even wrote, for myself, a collection of excerpts about it. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Jung and Freud relations

I think someone should say something about Freud's love affair with his wife's sister, and his clinging to or inability to abandon the "sexual theory" as a point of estrangement between the two. This is the primary point in most biographies attributing to the end of their friendship, and it isn't here. Also, this page is lacking a criticism section.

Thouliha (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the "Jung and Freud" section should be moved to a page of its own. If more is added (and I agree that there is more to say, although I still am not convinced that the sexual affair has been proven or that discussion of it belongs on the Jung page) it will become such a major section that it overshadows the rest of the page. Rose bartram (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Jung's picture, if available should be placed on the article, not a bookcover of his book. Consider changing it Jon Ascton (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

More encyclopedic, less anecdotes

I think the biography section has lot of anecdotes, we must instead concentrate on the actual events and major milestones in his life, for ex: "Shortly before the end of his first year at the Humanistisches Gymnasium in Basel, at age 12, he was pushed to the ground by another boy so hard that he was for a moment unconscious. The thought then came to him that "now you won't have to go to school any more".[7] From then on, whenever he started off to school or began homework, he fainted. " does not add much value. --Bluptr (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Jung and James Joyce

The article says that a "citation is needed" for the quote by Joyce that his daughter Lucia was "yooung and easily freudened". The quote comes from Finnegans Wake - if any one has a copy at hand, find the page number and give the publication details,that will be a source. In the same book, Joyce refers to the "Jungfraud" - showing that Joyce was probably quite skeptical of Freudian and Jungian psychology. I read Finnegans Wake rather a long time ago, so I do not have the precise details readily at hand. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Nazism section recent change

It seems to me that this entire section should be removed if it exists only to dismiss out of hand the possibility that Jung ever had any sympathies with Nazis, ever, at any time. The situation is complex, and I'm certainly not going to waste any time trying to provide a thoughtful summary of the evidence that Jung did, at times, speak and act in ways that implied some sympathy with Nazi ideas. The work would be wiped out or at best evolve into an argument. The less said, the better, if all attempts at balance are going to be taken out because a quote is out of context or on some other excuse.

Wikipedia articles can never provide enough context to let the subject's own words tell the entire story, so they should not be turned into collections of quotes. If editors do reach a consensus that they are uncomfortable with that aspect of Jung's thinking and don't want it in the article, I suggest reducing the Nazi section to a simple statement that some observers felt that Jung had expressed approval of some Nazi ideas, but that there was never any real proof and Jung's followers have insisted that his words were misinterpreted. Something like that. Just don't pretend that both sides of an issue have been given fair expression, and then later remove one side.Rose bartram (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Translation?

Hi, is this article a translation from the french one? here. Thanks.--Prosopee (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. The travel section, for example, is one I wrote for this page in English. The French page has a similar section, but with some inaccuracies.Rose bartram (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rose, i am the main contributor on the french article, as far i am concerned, there are no mistakes in travel section, indeeed all the biography is based on Dair Bair's book Jung... --Prosopee (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Absence of Thought

For such an original and seminal thinker, you don't get much sense of Jung's beliefs by reading his Wikipedia page. Shouldn't there be at least a short section dedicated to explaining to the interested inquirer what "Jungian thought" actually is? -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you checked out the Analytical Psychology page? This page is primarily biographical and "Jungian thought" is more appropriately covered there.Rose bartram (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carl_Jung/Archive_2&oldid=1136592284"