Shuck and Jive

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Jung Seminar: A Great Success!

John and Carolyn Martin filled the house over the weekend with The Language of the Soul: The Psychology of Carl Jung. I still don't know the exact count, but we had between 105 and 110 in the Martin Hall for the presentation.

John and Carolyn walked us through Jung's basic thought and explained terms such as symbol, psyche, soul, archetype, personal unconscious, collective unconscious, shadow, ego, persona, anima/animus, projection, and complex.

We experience symbols through our unconscious. We feel them before we think about them. The symbol table helped us to understand many of the symbols that are common to all of us.

The iceberg was on the wall most of the time as a visual image of the psyche. It is a beautiful picture that shows us that 90 percent of the iceberg is below surface of the water.

John and Carolyn said if we can only take away one thing from the seminar, remember the iceberg. Ninety-percent of that which influences our thought, behavior and emotions is "underwater" or unconscious. Our conscious experience is only ten percent of or total experience.

We are largely out of touch and not aware of our unconscious experience and its influences. The key to Jung's psychotherapy was to help people become aware of their personal unconscious as well as the collective unconscious that all humanity shares.

We finished the weekend by watching the film, Moonstruck with a new awareness of what is going on behind the scenes in our psyches!

Mythos and Logos is a website to begin explorations into the thought of Carl Jung.


  1. Any worries about having Presbyterians associate with the near cultlike behavior of Jungians?

    This is an actual question, I'm not trying to start any trouble.

  2. Welcome Toby,

    Umm, no I have no worries.


  3. What about Jung's sleeping with multiple women for 'expressing his anima", along with his manipulative and exploitative use of patients for his own fame?

    (Not to mention the paganistic tendecies of the Jungian school?)

  4. Jung did have affairs. Whether or not he engaged in these to consciously "express his anima" as you suggest, I am not aware. I guess you know more about that than I.

    I don't know about his "manipulative and exploitative use of patients for his own fame." Again you have insights into his personality that I do not.

    I am also not aware of the "paganistic tendencies of the Jungian school" but I am sure that you do.

    Doesn't sound like Jung is the man for you, Toby.


  5. Despite Toby's personal slams on Carl Jung, I should say that his insights have helped thousands of people. His work has enabled people to understand themselves and to find their faith.

  6. I would suggest that casting stones at the personal life of an important thinker is simply a distraction from appreciating the ideas that that person had to contribute.

  7. John,

    Read one of his biographies written by an objective source. There are many on the market today. Whether liberal or conservative philisophically, his use of patients and their problems for his personal fame is historical fact that is easily verified by his letters and the events of his life.

    And yes, Jungian analysis might bring some people to 'faith', but it is a anti-biblical faith of human invention and as Jesus would say, 'built on sand'. How comforting is that?


    Is not the source of an idea--along with the real behavior and actions of that source--applicable in evaluating whether or not that idea is valid?

    If Jesus was some sort of terrible man, who slept around and stole from people, would not his teachings then come into question?

    I would think so.

  8. Correction:
    I meant to say, "whether one is liberal or conservative philosophically,"

  9. Toby,

    That is what Jesus would say, eh? I disagree with your assessment that Jung's ideas lead people to an "anti-biblical faith of human invention."

    Everyone has feet of clay, Toby. (That does not mean I agree with your assessment of his character).

    Again, to each his own. If you don't like Jung's ideas, then don't read him.

  10. What is so bad with Jung? Not saying I know the man all that well - I am familiar with tidbits of his work - but it's just psychology. I think if people can see some of the elements of Jung as helpful - it's worth noting. Then again I think knowing about psychology is a worthwhile exercise - churches should get back in the business of teaching us stuff we might not know.

  11. Is not the source of an idea--along with the real behavior and actions of that source--applicable in evaluating whether or not that idea is valid?

    No, actually, it is not applicable at all. This would be an example of an ad homimem fallacy.