Sad to see Carl Jung's name tainted in this article here because of his early association with Freud. They were two very different psychoanalysts. Jung split from Freud because of Freud's obsession with sex and insistence with filtering all human experience through that lens. He developed a more spiritual approach to psychology as well as the concepts of the collective unconscious distinguishing it from the personal unconscious of Freudian psychoanalysis. He argued that the collective unconscious had profound influence on the lives of individuals, who lived out its symbols and clothed them in meaning through their experiences.. There is a vast chasm between Freudian and Jungian psychotherapists and psychoanalysts which lasts to this day.
Jung's close collaboration with Freud lasted until 1913. Jung had become increasingly critical of Freud's exclusively sexual definition of libido and incest. The publication of Jung's Wandlungen und Symbole der Libido (known in English as The Psychology of the Unconscious) led to a final break.
From Wikipedia :
Critics of the collective unconscious concept
They mean Freudians
have called it unscientific and fatalistic, or otherwise very difficult to test scientifically (due to the mythical aspect of the collective unconscious) for those faith-based scientists.[2] Proponents suggest that it is borne out by findings of psychology, neuroscience, and anthropology.
Meaning: can no longer hide the fact that neuroscience and other scientific disciplines are corroborating Jung's theories.
The world of psychology is still largely dominated by Freudian disciples. Please don't get the two men and their work confused. It would be a huge disservice to Jung.
I was a fan of Jung before I researched this. I don't think he was the monster Freud was, but his connections to Tavistock and Esalen do need to be looked into.
I am aware of the difference between Jung and Freud -- I have always liked Jung. However, Jung also describes having had an alter personality as a child, and described his mother similarly. So I cannot ignore these types of things while researching this area. I think I wrote in the article that he would be as much a victim as perpetrator, if the indications from childhood are correct.
eg: "Jung was a solitary and introverted child. From childhood, he believed that, like his mother,[11] he had two personalities—a modern Swiss citizen and a personality more suited to the 18th century.[12] "Personality Number 1", as he termed it, was a typical schoolboy living in the era of the time. "Personality Number 2" was a dignified, authoritative and influential man from the past."
You will realize from my posts that I am a big fan of Jung. I regard him as one of the great minds of the 20th Century. He was also deeply spiritual. He was not connected to Esalen. Esalen was founded in 1962. They have taken some of his teachings because he was so influential and his concepts extremely powerful in terms of the human psyche. Freud on the other hand seems to have been a pervert and some of that has been hidden in the writing of his history. His family line is still influential in London - with Tavistock and other psychological institutions. Most psychology textbooks are heavily Freudian. Jung was too spiritual and somewhat more complex for materialists. However as we as a society become more complex we can see Jung's influence in companies like Disney and Marvel comics, for example, who use his ideas on archetypes to create characters that are deeply influential to young people. And we see some of these ideas played out ever more crudely in pop culture.
I mostly agree with everything you've said here. I think it is unwise to allow our personal respect for anyone to negate research around them.
Seriously. This entire series of posts mentioned Jung in brief in one part of a much longer investigation into a related topic, but is not and was not intended to unfairly mar Jung. And since he is listed in association with Tavistock directly, it is not unfair to think that he warrants further research.
"Many well-known psychologists and psychiatrists have passed through the Tavistock Institute over the years, and it became known as the focal point in Britain for psychoanalysis and the psychodynamic theories of Sigmund Freud and his followers. Other names associated with the Tavistock are Melanie Klein, Carl Gustav Jung, J. A. Hadfield, Beckett, Charles Rycroft, Wilfred Bion, and R. D. Laing."
Here's what I wrote about him:
"Before stumbling upon this area of research, I had believed Jung to have been a genuinely positive influence in developing therapuetic methods. After researching his connections to Tavistock, and Esalen, it is clear to me that despite my previous assumptions, Jung was most likely involved in similar studies of trauma based mind control. His life is haunting when viewed from this perspective. He acknowledged that in childhood he perceived himself and his mother to have had alternate personalities."
"His interest in primitive cultures and ritual is also significant in understanding Esalen and associated group's near-obsession with these same cultures.Jung's artistic expression in works like the Red Book might be viewed as much as the inner work of a DID sufferer, as that of a person involved with the research and perpetuation of abuses by military intelligence groups."
I feel this was at once truthful and sympathetic to Jung. No where did I call him a monster.
This link is more food for thought on Jung's behaviour; I am not intending to smear OR support him. Only point out that this is all worth more research, that is all.
I would ask you to please read the entire articles I posted, which are much larger in scope than an argument around Jung, and I think are very important in regards to ritual abuse.
After researching his connections to Tavistock, and Esalen, it is clear to me that despite my previous assumptions, Jung was most likely involved in similar studies of trauma based mind control.
You need to back up that statement. Where's the evidence to qualify that statement?
Also, you are apparently ignoring the fact that Jung slept with a mentally ill patient. When he dumped her, she stabbed him. This was the catalyst for the Red Book.
Are you going to tell me that he was a cool guy so him sleeping with a patient is ok? I do not go for covering up the reality of abuse. Ever.
view the rest of the comments →
cantsleepawink ago
Sad to see Carl Jung's name tainted in this article here because of his early association with Freud. They were two very different psychoanalysts. Jung split from Freud because of Freud's obsession with sex and insistence with filtering all human experience through that lens. He developed a more spiritual approach to psychology as well as the concepts of the collective unconscious distinguishing it from the personal unconscious of Freudian psychoanalysis. He argued that the collective unconscious had profound influence on the lives of individuals, who lived out its symbols and clothed them in meaning through their experiences.. There is a vast chasm between Freudian and Jungian psychotherapists and psychoanalysts which lasts to this day.
Here is a link with a very simple summary about the two men https://www.simplypsychology.org/psychodynamic.html
From Wikipedia :
They mean Freudians
Meaning: can no longer hide the fact that neuroscience and other scientific disciplines are corroborating Jung's theories.
The world of psychology is still largely dominated by Freudian disciples. Please don't get the two men and their work confused. It would be a huge disservice to Jung.
9217 ago
I was a fan of Jung before I researched this. I don't think he was the monster Freud was, but his connections to Tavistock and Esalen do need to be looked into.
I am aware of the difference between Jung and Freud -- I have always liked Jung. However, Jung also describes having had an alter personality as a child, and described his mother similarly. So I cannot ignore these types of things while researching this area. I think I wrote in the article that he would be as much a victim as perpetrator, if the indications from childhood are correct.
eg: "Jung was a solitary and introverted child. From childhood, he believed that, like his mother,[11] he had two personalities—a modern Swiss citizen and a personality more suited to the 18th century.[12] "Personality Number 1", as he termed it, was a typical schoolboy living in the era of the time. "Personality Number 2" was a dignified, authoritative and influential man from the past."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung
cantsleepawink ago
You will realize from my posts that I am a big fan of Jung. I regard him as one of the great minds of the 20th Century. He was also deeply spiritual. He was not connected to Esalen. Esalen was founded in 1962. They have taken some of his teachings because he was so influential and his concepts extremely powerful in terms of the human psyche. Freud on the other hand seems to have been a pervert and some of that has been hidden in the writing of his history. His family line is still influential in London - with Tavistock and other psychological institutions. Most psychology textbooks are heavily Freudian. Jung was too spiritual and somewhat more complex for materialists. However as we as a society become more complex we can see Jung's influence in companies like Disney and Marvel comics, for example, who use his ideas on archetypes to create characters that are deeply influential to young people. And we see some of these ideas played out ever more crudely in pop culture.
9217 ago
I mostly agree with everything you've said here. I think it is unwise to allow our personal respect for anyone to negate research around them.
Seriously. This entire series of posts mentioned Jung in brief in one part of a much longer investigation into a related topic, but is not and was not intended to unfairly mar Jung. And since he is listed in association with Tavistock directly, it is not unfair to think that he warrants further research.
Tavistock's wiki page mentions Jung's association with Tavi:
"Many well-known psychologists and psychiatrists have passed through the Tavistock Institute over the years, and it became known as the focal point in Britain for psychoanalysis and the psychodynamic theories of Sigmund Freud and his followers. Other names associated with the Tavistock are Melanie Klein, Carl Gustav Jung, J. A. Hadfield, Beckett, Charles Rycroft, Wilfred Bion, and R. D. Laing."
Here's what I wrote about him:
"Before stumbling upon this area of research, I had believed Jung to have been a genuinely positive influence in developing therapuetic methods. After researching his connections to Tavistock, and Esalen, it is clear to me that despite my previous assumptions, Jung was most likely involved in similar studies of trauma based mind control. His life is haunting when viewed from this perspective. He acknowledged that in childhood he perceived himself and his mother to have had alternate personalities."
"His interest in primitive cultures and ritual is also significant in understanding Esalen and associated group's near-obsession with these same cultures.Jung's artistic expression in works like the Red Book might be viewed as much as the inner work of a DID sufferer, as that of a person involved with the research and perpetuation of abuses by military intelligence groups."
I feel this was at once truthful and sympathetic to Jung. No where did I call him a monster.
This link is more food for thought on Jung's behaviour; I am not intending to smear OR support him. Only point out that this is all worth more research, that is all.
I would ask you to please read the entire articles I posted, which are much larger in scope than an argument around Jung, and I think are very important in regards to ritual abuse.
cantsleepawink ago
Sure. I'm sure Jung can handle the scrutiny :-)
Now let's get down to business:
You need to back up that statement. Where's the evidence to qualify that statement?
9217 ago
Also, you are apparently ignoring the fact that Jung slept with a mentally ill patient. When he dumped her, she stabbed him. This was the catalyst for the Red Book.
Are you going to tell me that he was a cool guy so him sleeping with a patient is ok? I do not go for covering up the reality of abuse. Ever.