From the moment he was still in my Jungian training, I felt it was not enough the need for analysts to submit to a personal analysis before patients are under analysis, but also "The Third of the two", ie psychological theory (as the framework for all work in the consulting room), you need a similar criticism. Therefore, it is with great pleasure to note that John Beebe in his response shows and does full justice to the motivation and the spirit of my criticism Jung in my present trial ( The End of Meaning and the Birth of Man ). I feel completely understood when my work recognized in "not an argument with a soul, but an argument from the soul" , they appreciated my criticism of Jung's psychology as a critical next but rolling out its internal contradictions. My purpose is not, of course, Jung left behind, but to advance our understanding of the internal logic and the origin of the tradition of thought to which we belong. And when Beebe makes this wonderful statement " feel that nothing more would have liked Jung psychology to know that his dream would be even more, until he no longer needed, and that awareness and knowledge will have replaced" , Beebe attributed not only-and I think properly, "a noble spirit to Jung, but also displays his own noble thought and psychological wisdom. For indeed, what is at stake is the consciousness, not the person.
Beebe's warning against jumping to the conclusion on the basis of my work, "that the practice of Jungian analysis has lost its raison d'être and will now only be an anachronism" is as justified as when questions about "how Jung's thought Giegecich prefer to retain their readers" . Although not wish to express any preference about the intellectual options of my readers, some comments about what I want, or need, can take place. I excluded deliberately from my article a discussion of the lasting achievements of Jung. First, its purpose was not a balanced assessment of the draft Jungian psychology as a whole, but only a discussion of their psychology "in light of the question of meaning" . Second, including a discussion of the positive achievements of Jung might have supported the misconception that a review is so terrible that require immediate comfort. But in the world of the mind (in contrast to the narcissism of the ego personality), criticism is always constructive. Third, this could have created the impression that he was unwilling to take care of my relentless criticism of this aspect of the psychology of Jung that I am, and wanted to prove that I am a "good" Jungian, after all. Criticism and praise should not be offset each other, because then every one of them neutralize each other, instead of living each in its own right and with full force.
What I value above all among the achievements of Jung (apart from the multitude of wonderful psychological insights about individual phenomena) is (1) he had, and he based his psychology on a notion very clear of the soul as a reality own right (as opposed to the idea of \u200b\u200b"the psyche of human beings"), (2) he knew that psychology had become interested in the content, the substance and not merely formal mechanisms and relationships, (3) that realized that "without history there can be no psychology" , and in-depth understanding of archetypal symbols opened the way for an archeology of the soul, (4) that on the individual and in the consulting room can only be a minor aspect of the full reality of the soul and personal neurosis that is much more than a problem of a particular person and (5) that his idea and his work as a therapist were informed by a true sense and commitment to the singular (the individuum ineffabile ), both with respect to people like all the time ( in contrast to the usual abstraction of "cases", "case histories", "clinical diagnosis", "techniques to be applied, etc..) The implication of all these points, quite remarkable and unique in their time-would require a long discussion. As mentioned particularly Beebe "the practice of Jungian analysis" , I just want to say here, that is precisely when one is free from the burden of having to find "meaning" (which is ultimately the burden of having to "save the world"), working with individual patients can be deeply rewarding and exciting and hopefully reach a point where the patient can begin to lead a meaningful personal life.
Beebe analysis of the relationship between Jung and Hegel in terms of feature / function extraverted-introverted intuitive thinking is certainly instructive. But I'm really happy when it goes beyond the categories typological, reminding the reader that for me the thought is not a function of consciousness (in the sense of the typology of Jung). The danger of applying attitudes Jungian typology and functions to the arguments (psychological, theological, philosophical, etc.) Is that it tends to place each of those who argue, as it were, in their own separate world, so instead of being (and possibly conflicting) minds, we have different visions encapsulated within themselves and unable to come into contact with each other.
As other hand, I would like to mention here that in the event "however, Jung developed in his essay on the transcendent function something that is very similar to Hegel's dialectic" the words "seems" should be taken as referring to the "mere appearance" in the sense of an illusion. Beebe I can have made this comment, in the back of his mind, with an article published by a Jungian few years ago, an article that purported to show that the "transcendent function" Jung and the (as it was) "dialectical model" (!) of Hegel were indeed parallel, but in reality has been a lack of understanding of Hegelian thought. Without doubt, the mechanical scheme of thesis-antithesis-synthesis is a cliché often repeated, but this is not Hegel, who instead think in terms of "mediation" and "sublation" ( Vermittlung and Aufhebung ).
especially happy that makes me realize Beebe and have "trust [feeling the sense of thinking of my article] in the thought process that undoes its own moments that prevent psychological thinking" . One might say that this is the confidence of the "alchemist" in me.
But alas! As an observer of what is happening today, I must admit that my confidence is a confidence to despair. Is there still a chance for analytical psychology? Are they still thought, mind and soul of analytical psychology, or perhaps our field (which no doubt is already in the business of sell "soul" ) has lost its own soul - "wasting [his] psychological heritage" ? Certainly, not everyone in psychology must be serious thinkers. You can be a good practitioner without being an intellectual. But what does it mean for a field if not value intellect, nor regarded as vital concern to produce a new generation of intellectuals? How can assert and hold as such a field before having to cast it to dogs, if it lacks intellectual ideas?
And do analytical psychology has not been sold in the market popularity? Have not fallen down to be nothing more than a service provider, a provider of health services, on the one hand, and on the other, the gratification of emotional needs and "spiritual" (ego needs)? If you look at what they are publishing the Jungians in general and what is taught in Jungian training institutes, one is impressed by the syncretistic mishmash of ideas and techniques that flow from all type of heterogeneous sources. It seems that almost anything goes and it does not matter. And anyone who has a license as an analyst feels authorized to give opinions, which are as free associations about what he wants. Where is the authority within the field that could give the measure and its identity, an authority that would be the equivalent of what an individual's moral life is called conscience? It seems that today there are only three governing authorities in the field of analytical psychology, and all of which are false. Is in the field of analytical psychology Jung's authority and what he taught (the dogmatic concept of authority), is the authority of "what sells" (which sold both in the market or what it sells to both the individual Jungian personally), then is from outside bureaucratic authority of legal norms and regulations of professional societies, the authority of the mechanical requirements of "quality of material" Blind plans or evaluation, or peer review, ethics committees, etc. This third form of authority is not limited to psychology, on the contrary, its extension is powerful, even overwhelming in the society at large, a trend that one side seeks to systematically undermine personal responsibility and intellectual ethics, and On the other hand, respect for the mind, and replace both standardized control mechanisms, in other words, is the final victory of fascism, not a crude and literal, but in a refined, sublimated. Certainly, there is reason for despair.
But then, taking into account the nature of high-level responses have been given to my essay and the reception I get from this magazine and its editor, I can also say that my confidence above in the process of thought are still feeding.
W. Giegerich
