Currently Reading

May 3, 2007 - 2:58pm

I'm a few pages away from finishing Deirdre Bair's amazing biography of C.G. Jung. I was absolutely fascinated all the way through. Jung was one of those incredible people who are somehow able to intuitively grasp truth. Perhaps this is one way to think about the people we call geniuses. It's really hard to understand, for example, how Einstein came up with his ideas about the universe. I mean, how does a person even get started thinking about relativity? Jung was like that, but what he saw was the mysterious human psyche.

I was saddened to find that Jung's insights did not lead him to a peaceful inner life, nor did they enable him to have good relationships. He was a terrible father and, according to the ways most people think about marriage, an equally terrible husband. The cult-like gathering of his disciples was rather frightening. He had a strange way of attracting rich women who pretty much gave their lives to furthering his philosophy/psychology.

Jung's activities during WWII were surprising. He secretly worked against Nazi Germany, but was branded a Nazi by many people for the rest of his life. Bair certainly doesn't take a romantic view of Carl Jung, so I trust her conclusion that Jung was innocent and misjudged in this matter.

I've read "Memories, Dreams, Reflections," which is said to be his autobiography. Reading that was an important step in my own development, so I was saddened to find that Bair's research casts serious doubt on its validity. The publication of MDR was an unbelievable circus with numerous people fighting over the rights to it. At the same time, it is very unclear what parts of the "autobiography" are from Jung and what parts came from his manipulative editors and Jung's children, who fought hard to "clean up" his language and create an image that fit their idea of polite society. So, if you read "Memories, Dreams, Reflections," do so with some healthy skepticism.

But the biography was a great read. Apparently Ms. Bair had greater access to Jung's heirs and materials than anyone before. If you have any interest in Jung, you really have to read this.

Click either image to purchase from Viva. They keep these in stock, of course. Support independent bookstores!

rlp

 

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 3, 2007 - 4:41pm.

I doubt most people know this, but Jung can, in a certain light, be called the grandfather of Alcoholics Anonymous and thus all 12-step programs; it was his awareness that recovering from addiction required a "spiritual awakening" that led directly (via one of his patients) to Bill Wilson and the founding of AA. Just FYI.

Chuck Sigars

Submitted by rlp on May 3, 2007 - 4:46pm.

That story is in the book as well. I was fascinated to learn that.

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 4, 2007 - 9:52am.

Who are some of your other favorite authors? Who do you like to read in terms of theology,fiction ect...

Submitted by rlp on May 4, 2007 - 10:28am.

I read no theology or Church "how-to" books anymore. I read biblical and theological commentaries and articles and essays. Mostly in connection to sermon preparation. It's not a choice I make because I don't think those books are interesting, but I write so much that I don't have much reading time. Every book you read is ten you won't.

I was a philosophy and religion major in college, then went to seminary, then to an internship. I read theology and Biblical stuff for 10 years.

Now I'm leaning into my life as a writer, drawing upon what theological knowledge I have and can gather in less formal ways. I'm reading in other fields now, but mostly I read fiction. I try not to read anything that's not great writing. If you want to write well, read good writers.

I read classics - A lot of Hemingway because I love his rugged style and he's good to get the feel of modern English writing. Updike I love. Annie Dillard. I just finished A Clockwork Orange. And I like good Science Fiction. Am working my way through the Hugo award winners from each year.

The Jung biography was a part of my own private study of Jung's philosophy/psychology. It's very helpful to my writing (and living). Jung has a lot to teach us about tapping into creativity. I'm currently working my way through some of his lectures and essays in a massive collection of his work - "The Symbolic Life." I'm going slowly, taking notes, thinking a lot.

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 4, 2007 - 1:56pm.

At the mention of Annie Dillard, I thought of a couple of favorite quotes:

"Spend the afternoon. You can't take it with you." and

"I have never read any theologian who claims God is particularly interested in religion, anyway."

Submitted by Keith on May 5, 2007 - 12:29pm.

I find it very helpful to read bad writing, too. Not the bottom-level published writing, but the mid-level unpublished stuff. The mistakes are the same ones good writers make--telling when they should show, failing to enter late and exit early, egregious expository dialogue, front-loading narrative exposition, not knowing the difference between stuff happening and a story--but the incidences are easier to see.

I didn't used to feel this way. When I started teaching fiction writing, though, I found that the things I had to clarify to my students rebounded into my own work. It's hard to think Well, I can get away with this, because I'm a genius in your fifth novel when you've just had to gently suggest that maybe the same thing doesn't work in a student's first.

Mid-range published writing, I think, is useful too, for contrast. It's been really illuminating to me to ask myself, sometimes, when I've just read something amazing, "Okay... how would a lesser writer have done this?"

And if you haven't already... E.M Forster's Aspects of the Novel is simple and brilliant.

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 4, 2007 - 10:50am.

Hey Preacher,
Are you a C.S. Lewis fan? Have you ever read his space trilogy? Its pretty dated as far as sci-fi goes, but ther're good books.

Submitted by rlp on May 4, 2007 - 11:43am.

I do like CS Lewis. I find him a leeetle stodgy on the issue of women and men and relationships, but hey, he lived mostly in the first half of the last century.

I've read every common thing he has written, including the Space Trilogy, which is some of his finest work. Perelandra is stunning. Genesis gives a sentence or two to the temptation. Milton 200 lines or so (so I'm told. Never read Milton) and Lewis gives us 200 pages of the temptation. Amazing stuff.

BUT, That Hideous Strength is my favorite. I've read it 3 or 4 times. WOW.

Thanks for this. I think I might write about it, having been reminded of how much I liked it.

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 4, 2007 - 12:37pm.

Hey no problem. The Great Divorce is my personal Lewis favorite, But he was amazing. The thing I love about him is his ability to take a very complicated issue and explain it simply and perfectly in one or two sentences.

Submitted by rlp on May 4, 2007 - 12:52pm.

Really? the Great Divorce is also my favorite of all his works. That Hideous Strength was just the one I liked best in the trilogy. The Great Divorce is wonderful. Although, it's hard to choose between that and The Screwtape Letters.

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 4, 2007 - 7:57pm.

The Great Divorce and That Hideous Strength is up there for me too. But have you ever checked out Till We Have Faces? It's the retelling of the myth of Cupid and Psyche. It's amazing.

Presbyterian Gal

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 4, 2007 - 1:08pm.

Lewis, Jung and so on and on

Now, the only Lewis I can still read comfortably is Till We Have Faces, and that is so neo-platonist it is nearly pagan.

Jung and his family...I've decided that there was almost no way in the first half of the 20th century to learn to be a decent parent. And of course he had followers! He was a spiritual teacher, followers are part of the job. The rich women were part of the spiritual and sexual desperation of time--there wasn't an outlet for either impulse for women (nor all that many for men, really) in that period and one got some horrific behavior. Reality is, I think, the people who were happiest and most ethical in both areas were the ones who broke a lot of the rules, and that had a huge price in other areas of life.

randolph at panix.com

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 4, 2007 - 5:54pm.

Jung was interesting. Especially the pooping on God part... weird.
However, the granddaddy was William James aka Billy Jimbo. Lots of good stuff in the "varieties of Religious Experience." What angst.

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 4, 2007 - 6:13pm.

Another book about Carl Jung is "The Aryan Christ: The Secret Life of Carl Jung" by Richard Noll. He uncovered details that were either suppressed by Jung's family & disciples or have been newly excavated from archives in Europe and America.

Richard shows how Carl's idealization of "primitive man" has at its roots the Volkish movement of his own day, which championed a vision of an idyllic pre-Christian, Aryan past. Richard creates a full account of Jung's private and public lives. Carl advocated polygamy as a spiritual path. He was involved in neopaganism and polytheism. He had a pivotal visionary experience in which he saw himself reborn as a lion-headed god from an ancient cult. He launched a religious movement based upon these principles.

For Christians, the spiritual dimensions of what Richard discloses is really bad. Carl used self-induced trances, opening himself up to demonic influence. Carl hosted a demon called "Philemon" that automatically wrote a lot of what he is famous for!

If this is so, then the 19th century intellectuals bought into a lot of doctrines of demons. Maybe this would explain why the field of psychology was so anti-Christian.

--Tim Temple
orderofsaintpatrick.org

Submitted by rlp on May 4, 2007 - 8:10pm.

I'll be honest, that sounds so extreme that it doesn't sound real to me. There is a lot of anti-Jung sentiment out there. If there is good research to back it up, I'll buy it. But that just sounds slanderous to me. Too much. Too "conspiracy theory" sounding.

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 4, 2007 - 7:43pm.

As long as we're discussing authors, what do you think of Henri Nouwen, Gordon?
I ask because he is so highly regarded among christian writers, but I have never really enjoyed his work for some reason...

Submitted by rlp on May 4, 2007 - 8:08pm.

Yeah, I know this is heresy, but I've never been able to get through any of his books. Wait, I think I did read the one about when he joined the community for mentally challenged people in France.

But I have a hard time getting through almost any Christian writing. I don't know, I spend so much time talking and writing about theological/Biblical/ecclesiological stuff that I can't bear to spend time reading about it.

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 5, 2007 - 7:19am.

Few, if any, ever discuss Jung's final conclusions, which includes
his concept of "archetypal reality" - and the nature of numbers
as the most primal archetype of order in the human mind.

In part, he says:

Since the remotest times men have used number to establish
meaningful coincidences, that is, coincidences that can be
interpreted.

There is something peculiar, one might even say mysterious
about numbers. They have never been entirely robbed of their
numinous aura. If, so a textbook of mathematics tell us, a
group of objects is deprived of every single one of its
properties or characteristics, there still remains, at the end,
its number, which seems to indicate that number is something
irreducible.

The sequence of natural numbers turns out to be unexpectedly
more than a mere stringing together of identical units; it
contains the whole of mathematics and everything yet to be
discovered in this field.

Number, therefore, is in one sense an unpredictable entity.

It is generally believed that numbers were invented, or thought
out by man, and are therefore nothing but concepts of quantities
containing nothing that was not previously put into them by the
human intellect. But it is equally possible that numbers were
found or discovered.. In that case they are not only concepts
but something more-autonomous entities which somehow contain
more than just quantities.

Unlike concepts, they are based not on any psychic conditions
but on the quality of being themselves, on a "so-ness" that
cannot be expressed by an intellectual concept.
Under these conditions they might easily be endowed with qualities that have still to be discovered. I must confess
that I incline to the view that numbers were as much found
as invented, and that in consequence they possess a relative
autonomy analogous to that of the archetypes.

They would then have in common with the latter, the quality
of being pre-existent to consciousness, and hence, on occasion,
of conditioning it, rather than being conditioned by it.

This was a dream event dated, 10/10/1988....

"In a classroom, a teacher, (woman) is talking about astronomy.
The scene changes to a field, where two bears are romping, and
a duck is flying overhead."

Correctly interpreted, with the symbols converted to number value, (Chaldean numerology) the values are: 4.6.32.15.31.27....

The details were reviewed by senior researchers at Princeton
University.

The verification:
PEAR, advanced lab, Princeton University.
Director: Dr. Robert G. Jahn, former Dean,
School of Applied Science.

Dated: Feb. 8th, 1993.

RE: Synchronicity, "meaningful coincidence."

It is an excellent example of conectedness between
the subjective and objective domains of human experience,
mediated by the symbolic language of numbers.

In a very real sense, as was recognized by Pythagorus and
his successors, this symbolism lies at the root of all science,
including the contemporary, whereby the human mind seeks to
interpret in some tangible and communicative mode the intuitive
insights gained from observing Nature.

The error lies in our FORGETFULNESS of the origin of these
symbols.

Sincerely,
Brenda J. Dunne
Associate to Dr. Jahn.

The problem:

There is no such animal as metaphysics.....Arthur C. Clarke

Dreams are junk science....................Alan Dershowitz

Prophecy is a lost art.....................Carl Sagan

It's a glorious ...................Stephen J. Gould

Quote: I would never commit the fashionable stupidity of
regarding everything I cannot explain, as fraud.....Jung.

We have placed our faith in subjective reality, and have
forgotten the wisdom of the ancients, that, in dreams we
pass into the greater truth, when we were the whole, and
the whole was in us; free from the shackles of "ego."

References: Synchronicity-an acausal connecting principle, Jung.

"atom and archetype" - letters between Jung and Pauli, the physicist,
from 1932-1958....

"Number and Time" - M.L. von Franz

"numomathematics"
"Entelekk"
New York

Submitted by rlp on May 5, 2007 - 11:41am.

????

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 5, 2007 - 12:32pm.

lol, yeah WTF!?!?

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 5, 2007 - 12:35pm.

So whats Jung's deal? I read that he is like the father of analytical phsychology or something? Wouldnt that be Sigmund Freud?

Submitted by rlp on May 5, 2007 - 4:49pm.

Jung was Freud's disciple, and for a time his heir apparent. Both of them were involved in the development of analytical psychology. Simply put, Freud found a sexual basis for all behavior, so if you were having a hard time living, there was a sexual reason behind it.

Jung felt it was more complex than that. He felt that the unconsious mind drives us to act, but the unconscious mind contains a lot more than sexual impulses. There is the collective unconscious, for example, which is a kind of common human instinct. So we dream in common themes and symbols.

Freud ended up hating Jung because Jung "betrayed" the Freudian movement. Don't feel to sorry for Jung. He behaved exactly the same way with his disciples. There were numerous men who learned from him and looked up to him, but he cut them off the minute they suggested anything that wasn't Jung's orthodoxy.

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 5, 2007 - 5:13pm.

So you are a Jungian rather than a Freudian...

Submitted by rlp on May 7, 2007 - 9:58pm.

Hmm. I'd say that I don't want to be called either one. I like Jung's way of describing the human psyche, but I'm not a sold-out Jungian. For one thing, I'm still in the process of finding out what he thought.

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 5, 2007 - 3:17pm.

You should make a list of your favorite books, like what you did with your favorite movies...
You mentioned that you read alot of biblical commentaries, you like William Barclay's right?

Submitted by rlp on May 5, 2007 - 4:45pm.

Uh, Barclay. Sort of. His historical information is amazing. I mean, it's so good I sometimes wonder if it can even be true. He's worth it just for that. But his exegetical/interpretive observations are very very trite and do not challenge at all.

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 7, 2007 - 8:14pm.

Jung and William James both ended up hating Freud.