Contemporary key Post-Jungian thinkers
- Rational and irrational sides of Carl Gustav Jung.
- The focus of the essay.
- Andrew Samuels as the main organizer of the post-Jungian world.
- Samuels 1985 categorizations.
- Part 1.
- Susan Rowland's work at the University of Greenwich's School of Humanities & Social Sciences.
- Rowland's view of Jung's work.
- Thomas Moore's writing in 'The Essential James Hillman: A Blue Fire'.
- Giegerich's attempt to avoid psychic inflation.
- Robert Sega's books on Jung.
Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961) had a rational and irrational side. The rational side of Jung was scientifically orientated. It was an empirical side that studied psychic contents as psychological facts. Meanwhile the irrational side of Jung lapped up and experienced esoteric and numinous psychological phenomena. The scientific Jung strove to organize the irrational contents of the psyche; as the rational side of the psyche endeavors to establish order on the irrational side. Hence he came up with orientating ideas such as archetypes and the collective unconscious. These two sides to Jung have created confusion over whether Jung was scientifically or artistically orientated. As we will see this question is central to this essay.
In this essay the focus is not on Jung but on contemporary key Post-Jungian thinkers. We will therefore firstly introduce the thinkers and then in part 1 we will expand on the themes set out in this introduction.
[...] Y & Dawson, T p Samuels, in Casement, A p19 & 20 NOTES: Part 1 Rowland, S Rowland, S Rowland, 30th September 2008 Hillman, J Moore, in Hillman, J & Moore, T p50 Hillman, in Hillman, J & Moore, T p17 Gigerich, W Tacey, 19th September 2008 Giegerich, http://www.rubedo.psc.br/Entrevis/indgieg2.htm 10: Segal, R 11: Segal, R 12: Segal, R p12 13: Jung, in Segal, R p12 14: Segal, 18th September 2008 BIBLIOGRAPHY Casement, (1998) Post-Jungians Today: Key Papers in Contemporary Analytical Psychology (Routledge) Eisendrath, P. [...]
[...] Hence X encompasses Y through recognizing the similarity despite the difference. Segal writes: nature, all theorists of myth, not just Jung, are interested in the similarities rather than the differences among myths. To encompass all cases of myth, theorists not only identify overt similarities among them but also uncover similarities beneath apparent differences. Jung, however, goes further. He repeatedly declares myths to be not merely similar but outright identical an identity that he attributes to their identical origin.?12 Segal then quotes Jung as saying is the same as with myths and symbols, which can arise autochthonously in every corner of the earth and yet are identical, because, because they are fashioned out of the same world-wide human unconscious, whose contents are infinitely less variable than are races and individuals.?13 On the question of what Jung was, Segal writes: would deny that Jung sought to be many things? [...]
[...] However in this essay we will take key contemporary post-Jungians positions on Jung and/or Jungian psychology as science or art or both. Obviously there is a connection to Samuels schools. For example Hillman is opposed to thinking of psychology as science as non-interpretation is central to archetypal psychology. And therefore whenever he talks on this question he is going to try and get that message firmly across to the listener. However, Robert Segal has not defined his position according to Samuels categorizations nor has Rowland but Rowland does write about Jung in relation to art and science all the time. [...]