Talk:Carl Jung

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Please place the newest entries at the bottom. A talk page is not a blog!

[edit] Archives

/JungTalkPageArchive 1: 2004 – August 2005

[edit] Expanding this article

I would really like to see a bit more information about Jungs various books, and his interest in eastern philosophies. I would do it myself, but I'm not very knowledgable about Jung in general.

Spellings and Word Meanings. I see that this page has the spelling "extroversion", but I believe that the accepted spelling today is "extraversion". Also, I should say that some one should establish a hyper-link or wiki-link to the word "extraversion", as this word has been defined in different ways at different times.

I agree with this comment, the article remains sub-standard. JKillah 16:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Campbell

Does such an outstanding thinker as Joseph Campbell only merit his mentioning through two pop cultural avenues like Star Wars and The Matrix?

I'd argue whether the line should even exist in the article, I don't think there's any evidence that his thoughts led to the Star Wars movies. It may be possible to look at them in a Campbellian or Jungian light, but neither led to them. Sherurcij

22:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Look at this (admittedly unsourced) quote from the Star Wars article Mythology subsection: Lucas has stated that his intention was to create in Star Wars a modern mythology based on the studies of his friend and mentor Joseph Campbell. What is not stated in either article is Campbell's relationship to Jung. --Blainster 23:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Campbell and Lucas were in good relations. I read somewhere that Campbell recorded video documentaries in Lucas's ranch. If we try harder, I guess better evidence will come up. But do we need? --pippo2001 01:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tech problem with HTML.

For some reason, only on Carl Jung page, all of the carriage returns are lost and the words carry over endlessly to the right. The page is impossibly wide, and each paragraph is only one or two lines up and down. No other page seems to have this problem. I have IE 5.5 on Windows NT. Robert Moore, moved here Analytical Psychology. --pippo2001 16:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This happens if you leave a blank space in the first column of any line. It is a design "feature", not a browser problem. --Blainster 23:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rumored...

Although Jung was wary of founding a "school" of psychology — he was once rumored to have said, "Thank God I'm Jung and not a Freudian." — he did...

One of you two: cite a source. Better still, since I'm sure you'll find both, find out where it came from. Please don't add it back to the page, as at present it is unverified. --Mgreenbe 16:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Google search supports "jungian" (which I reverted to) which also fits best with the context of the sentence. Paul foord 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Supports" here is a single link. I think some firmer grounding is needed. --Mgreenbe 23:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please look more closely at the results - I saw 2 separate sources in my search. Another search found 2 sources on first page for "not a jungian"[1]

Integral Leadership - The San Diego Ken Wilber Meetup Group ...

Jung said once to his colleagues -- thank god I'm not a Jungian. Well -- I am not a Wilberian. http://kenwilber.meetup.com/261/boards/view/viewthread?thread=1610478

ANZAPT - Australia & New Zealand Association of Psychiatrists in ...

I should also add that I am not a Jungian (“Thank God I’m not a Jungian!” said Jung) but rather a “Jamesian”. That is, like many psychotherapists, ... http://www.anzapt.org/mambo/content/view/121//

-- Paul foord 11:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burghölzli

Re THANK YOU. I want to thank everybody who participated in creating this wonderful article. Carry on the good work! So many new things to learn. Even for a native Swiss like me. Thank you for the heartwarming story of how the great scientist cured an Alcoholic. Thank you for letting me know about how he visited India and other far off places, and what interesting dreams he had there. Thank you for pointing out his influence on Laurens van der Post and all the beautiful albums and video games. Thank you above all for what you did NOT mention: the rumors surrounding Jung's Presidency of a certain Verein and a certain Zeitschrift 1933-39 in a certain country somewhere North of Switzerland. These are, of course, nothing but ugly propaganda lies, totally unfounded and UNSOURCED. Pure POV and ORIGINAL RESEARCH, spread by disgruntled students who flunked their exams and are now using the internet as their private little SOAPBOX to get back at their professors. Thank you for not lending your ears to these sinister calumniators!
One little question: Three months ago, when we came down from the mountains to visit Zürich, the Burghölzli (or Klapsmühle, as Jung called it) was still in the city. But apparently it was moved in the meantime because, as the article states, it is now "near" Zürich. So I would be grateful if you could inform me of its new location. Also, while you are at it, you might indicate where, exactly, that other clinic, the Burgholzi (the one "in" Zürich according to the article), can be found. Looking forward to your answer. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe an anonymous editor who thinks Jung to be a behaviorist changed it at some point to "near Vienna"; this is wrong, of course, but I may have only changed the city and not the preposition. Feel free to make any changes you see fit! --Mgreenbe 11:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Re CHANGES. Why on earth should I want to change anything in the article, Mgreenbe? As far as I am concerned, the article is PERFECT. An article has to document current opinion ("knowledge", in WPish). And this is what the article does, Mgreenbe.
The commentary (the discussion page) is another thing. I would have expected you to understand this.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Der Schoss ist fruchtbar noch, aus dem das kroch! (B.Brecht)

Re MAGGOTS. No one who understands German will fail to be moved by the powerful image of a cunt crawling with big fat maggots suggested by the closing lines of Brecht's Arturo Ui. No translation comes close to it. Not the standard The womb is fertile still, from which this fruit was born (so flat and so genteel), and not the alternative ..., from which this crept or ..., that this crawled out from.
Mr Ui and his henchmen are no more, Brecht tells us, but the "womb" that this crawled out from is very much alive: the IRRATIONAL i.e. the schools like the one founded by C.G.Jung that teach among other things that a man can acquire knowledge magically, i.e. ohne Sinnesorgane (no need for any of the senses) or even ohne lebendes Hirn (without a living brain, but a dead one will apparently do for the Herr Professor). It is hardly a coincidence that the real Mr Ui always claimed, and firmly believed, that he possessed a Sixth Sense.
All this, Bertolt Brecht showed us clearly. But it does not come across in translation. It cannot. A word like fruchtbar e.g. has no equivalent in English. Of course, it does mean fertile, but it also looks and sounds like furchtbar (terrible, horrible, horrid). There you have it. There is no way around it. You have to learn German if you want to see the maggots. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jung on the numinous

Does anyone know how precisely Jung's concept of the numinous differed from that of Rudolf Otto? I'm trying to improve the article on the numinous, but it's been a while since I read Jung's view on the subject. noosphere 05:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

He sometimes uses the term to describe archetypes of a spiritual nature. And in Psychology and Religion (par. 6-9) he described Otto's word numinosum as "a dynamic agency or effect not caused by an arbitrary act of will", so that the experiencer is "victim rather than creator." Then "the numinosum is either a quality belonging to the visible object or the influence of an invisible presence that causes a peculiar alteration of consciousness." However, he admits that many ritualistic practices are done with the purpose of producing a numinosum effect. He then goes on to define religion as "the attitude peculiar to a consciousness which has been changed by experience of the numinosum." --Blainster 23:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Great, thank you for that, Blainster. I'll try to think of a way to incorporate that in to the article. noosphere 03:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Spiritualism(!?!) as a Cure (!?!) for alcoholism

This Section clearly bears the mark of someone with no clinical background, and certainly, no objectivity.

First of all, it is ‘Spirituality’ not ‘Spiritualism’ (there is a great difference!) Second, the use of the word ‘reform’ substantiates both of the above criticisms. Even Jung (with his own personal issues) would not refer to a patient as needing to be ‘reformed’ any more than he would refer to a diabetic as needing to be ‘reformed’.

Blaming the patient! To convince someone with a disease that the problem lies with a substantial deficiency in their ‘self’ is unconscionable to a competent professional.

I suggest the author of this section read some good, objective material on the life of Carl Jung. Jung could not, and would not, admit to not being able to help a particularly difficult patient; his ego and self-concept would not let him. His own struggles with the patient ‘Rowland H.’ (which is clearly the basis for this Section) are a classic part of the literature on Jung.

If this Section must remain a part of the Article on Jung, I am very troubled by its present form. It needs to be reworked!

Michael David 00:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can find some source material to back up your claims, by all means please add them to the page. I agree that the section is in need of clean-up. JKillah 16:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Organization?

Seeing as their are pages on Jungian psychology, the order of sections in this page seems quite awkward. "Jung's Life" seems to occur in the middle of discussions of his theories. I think "Jung's life" and "Jung and Freud" should be moved to the top? JKillah 15:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Jung's life is significant only because of his thinking. A concise overview of his central ideas--that which makes him a relevant thinker in Western history--should come first, then the details of his life--which are of secondary importance to the history of Western thought. As far as your point (which is a good one) regarding the page on Jungian Psychology, I think there could be a good argument made for getting rid of the page on "Jungian Psychology" and just having one page. It would be silly to have one page on Aristotle and then a different on Aristotelian philosophy, or one on Shakspeare and another on Shakspeare's works. Davidgustaft 17 May 2006

I agree with the first poster. As an article "Carl Jung" should deal primarly with his life and only secondarily with his theory and thinking. If you want an article about his thinking, it would be reasonable to refer to Jungian psychology. This article should be reorganized. → Aethralis 14:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is something that is perplexing me as well. Why is biography information secondary to his theories and ideas on the article? Information on his school of psychology belongs on analytical psychology, not here. — Sam 00:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo?

Does anyone know of a public domain photo of Jung? Perhaps one from when he was a young man that would be 100 years old by now? This page could use one. JKillah 15:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Archive

As part of a general page clean-up, I have archived all of the discussion that has been completed under the link above. JKillah 16:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jung and the Nazis

I have added a section about Jung's involvement with the Nazis. I have cited several sources and tried to remain as neutral as possible, marking it as something that is debated among scholars and trying to show both sides supported with facts. This topic is indeed quite controversial, but I feel that it can not be overlooked on a page about Jung. If anyone feels differently, we can use the talk page to discuss. JKillah 16:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Re CONTROVERSIAL. "Controversial", JKillah? Then please explain how far Jung (a Swiss citizen living in neutral Switzerland) would have had to go in his active support of Nazi Germany so that Wikipedia NPOV would allow us to call him a Nazi. What more could the Herr Professor have done without actually running afoul of Swiss law? Name one thing! --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 20:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Relax, Bruno. This is an editing community, not the inquisition. --Blainster 04:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Re INQUISITION. In what way exactly am I interfering with the editing of what you call the editing community, Blainster? Did I make any changes in the article? Did I suggest or advocate any such changes? How many times do I have to repeat that in my opinion the article ought to reflect what is considered to be knowledge by exactly that editing community? If even a commentary is too much for you, Blainster, I can't help you. Well, maybe in a small way I can: Seeing how you and some other people here react to criticism in any form, shape or manner, it isn't exactly the smartest move on your part to bring up the word Inquisition.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 15:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have moved a couple of paras in here because I don't think they present a neutral or well researched viewpoint:

Some scholars feel that Jung's reversal was not enough to compensate for his complicity in the "nazification" of pscyhoanalysis. Jung published several articles while working at the Göring Institute that claimed superiority for the "Aryan race", in particular that the Aryan race had a more "creative unconscious" than the Jewish race. Jung wrote a commentary at that time that can be considered anti-Semitic:

"The Jew, who is something of a nomad, has never yet created a cultural form of his own and as far as we can see never will, since all his instincts and talents require a more or less civilized nation to act as host for their development … In my opinion, it has been a grave error in medical psychology up to now to apply Jewish categories … to German and Slavic Christendom. " - Carl Jung [2] (par. 27)

In the first paragraph, a strong assertion is made, stating as fact that Jung published certain articles; I think an external link is required here to back up that assertion.

In the second paragraph, the quote attributed to Jung is from an article that attributes that quote to Jung but gives no reference. If you are going to say that Jung said x, it is vital that you reference exactly where Jung said x. If you don't, then the best you can say is 'person x claims that Jung said y'.

I'd like to add that I have no interest in brushing any complicity Jung may have had in Nazism under the carpet; I just think that allegations of such a serious nature really need to be made in more academically vigorous manner than they currently stand in these two paragraphs.

Please bring these paras up to standard and then re-insert them into the main article. Kantiandream 14:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to say that more evidence in regarding the labelling of Jung as an anti-Semite would require more evidence. Placing recognition of anti-Semitism in a historical figure is destructive in their legacy. I suggest that there be a removal of the shared sub-title Jung being an anti-Semitist in the article, or more evidence be attributed leading to Jung's association of pertaining characteristics in hating those of Jewish descent.Aeryck89 23:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of the Shadow

Just a question here, but according to other sources I have read, the Shadow is not necessarily the diametrical opposite of the person's general character, as seen in the case here. It is defined as amoral, being the remnant within our soul of our prehistoric animal past, the last of the instinctual habits which we can do nothing about, do not understand and can never get rid of. Because animals are not usually understood as self- conscious in the usual sense of the word, they are not usually considered either barbaric or gentle within their definitions, animals just are, and thus came the definition of the Shadow as the amoral aspect of the psyche. However they are usually represented in apparently dark or unpleasant figures in our dreams, for they often disturb us with apparent ruthlessness, yet at the same time fearfully appears to be something which we can never deal with, whether courageous or else. Luthinya 11:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Pullman and Carl Jung

Does anyone know if the famous author Philip Pullman has an exceeding interest upon the works of Jung within psychology? Observe, for instance, his description and application of the concept of the individual's daemon. It is drawing very close to Jung's own use of the animus and the anima! Luthinya 12:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The concept of an "inner demon" should not be entirely attributed to Carl Jung, even though he certainly "brought it to the masses". Ajaxkroon 08:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jung & thermodynamics

Main article: psychodynamics

I'm rather new to Jung. I know that Freud tired to model the dynamic mechanism of the psyche on the 1st law of thermodynamics (related to conservation of mental events) and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (related to mental driving forces and conflicts of energy); does anyone know what books I should read to find such application by Jung? For example, in an introductory discussion of "the shadow" I found the following: “The person who suppresses the animal side of his nature may become civilized, but he does so at the expense of decreasing the motive power for spontaneity, creativity, strong emotions, and deep insights.” (Hall, C.S. and Nordby, V. J. (1999). A Primer in Jungian Psychology. New York: Meridian.) Subsequently, for example, what core book would I find Jung discussing such concepts as: driving force, motive power, spontaneity, entropy, psychic energy, closed system, etc.? Thanks if you can help: --Sadi Carnot 17:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jung & chemistry

Does anyone know the date and source of the following Jung quote:

Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 19:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization?

should "analytical psychology" be capitalized? i dont think so. changing... - Bagel7

[edit] The Cara

Can someone help me understand the mysterious "the Cara " entries? Why is § 2.2 (which is relative to the relationship between Jung, Nazism and anti-semitism) titled "Jung and the Cara".

Why is § 3.2, which is about "The shadow", bear in parentheses the mysterious caption "Fifth Business and The Cara"

My Google search only delivered the following:

What is Anam Cara?(Spiritual Oracle)

"According to Celtic spiritual tradition, the soul shines all around the body like a luminous cloud. When you are very open ~ appreciative and trusting ~ with another person, your two souls flow together. This deeply felt bond with another person means you have found your anam cara, or "Soul Friend." Your anam cara always beholds your light and beauty, and accepts you for who you truly are. In Celtic spirituality, the anam cara friendship awakens the fullness and mystery of your life. You are joined in an ancient and eternal union with humanity that cuts across all barriers of time, convention, philosophy, and definition. When you are blessed with an anam cara, the Irish believe, you have arrived at that most sacred place: ~HOME~"

Is there any connection? Am I on the wrong track? Why such mysterious input, with no explanation whatsoever in the main article? --Miguel de Servet 23:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As nobody replied my questions about "the Cara" entries (see above), I have decided that they were deliberate obfuscation of Jung's links with Nazism and anti-Semitism, and "cleaned up" the main article accordingly.--Miguel de Servet 18:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Memories, Dreams, Reflections

So we can be clear on this, MDR is an autobiography, edited by Jaffe. The work started out as a biography, one which Jung was reluctant to have done for various reasons concerning feasibility. However, at some point, Jung became enthused, and started to write large chunks of it himself. As a result of this, Jaffe slipped into an editorial role, allowing Jung to tell his own story.

All this is explained in the Introduction of the book itself. Bungling, if you have strong reasons for thinking it should be noted as otherwise, please explain them here. In the meantime, I've reverted the article. Kantiandream 08:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I will refrain from general exposition regarding my -- thoroughly justified -- alteration which does not necessitate "reasons". Perhaps the secondary literature on Jung in context would be the veriest suggestion, but by whatever means let us not waste our time on such a boring topic... too bad the "big guns" died before he could irradicate such "autification". Gruss, Bungling 10:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't understand anything after the first sentence, sorry. Justification does necessitate reasons; justification is built out of reasons. I'm happy with not wasting time arguing over it. But please, don't change the title of a sub-section I've created for the purpose of talking to you just so you can make your point. Kantiandream 11:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I just changed the wording of the book cover description to include "partially autobiographical", before I came across this discussion here. "Autobiographical" implies it was entirely written by Jung, but then again I am not entirely sure just how much was written by whom. — Sam 00:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jung and tarot

I removed the reference to Jung using tarot. If he ever did, the evidence is lacking, although he was certainly aware of it, and his institute once considered using it as part of a study of several divination methods. The book titled The Jungian Tarot and Its Archetypal Imagery just uses Jungian methods to analyze tarot and does not claim that Jung used tarot. This tarot forum discusses the matter and finds no clear evidence that he used it. --Blainster 19:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent anonymous edits

I traced back and found a number of edits (starting with [3]) that seemed out of place. I put html comments around them, will someone who is more familiar with the subject please review his edits and remove the comments? --GargoyleMT 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Transcendental Function

There has been very little mention in the analytical psychology pages of the role of the transcendental function as a bridge between the ego and the shadow, even though this function tertiary "third" function was one of Jung's most researched topics.

[edit] Carl Gustav Jung?

Why is this article named "Carl Jung" but not "Carl Gustav Jung" or "C. G. Jung" as the person is universally known? Most of his books usually give C.G.Jung as the author and bibliographic entries in libraries are usually accordingly titled or give "Carl Gustav Jung". So why have this confusing title "Carl Jung"? This case is in many ways similar to H.G.Wells case. Also I would like to draw attention (again) to the fact that the article does not start with the biography of the person but instead with his theory (which anyway has a separate article devoted to). This is not exactly described in WP:MOSBIO, but the general idea is understandable from the guideline. → Aethralis 23:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shamdasani

I have removed the paranthetical remark asserting Sonu Shamdasani's Noll critique is "at times mean spirited" as it is a subjecting value judgement Fyfey 00:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)fyfey

[edit] confusion

hey. in the second paragraph of the Jung's Life section it says that he fell out with someone. who was it? it is very confusing.minamato 18:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll assume it was Freud. They disagreed about the unconscious and they fell out.

[edit] there is a disagreement in the text

in the section Jung's life it says that Jung sent Freud a copy of his book The Psychology of Dementia Praecox. in the section Jung and Freud it implies that Studies in Word Association was the first work that Jung sent to Freud. which was it? this is very confusing and distressing. --minamato 18:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit: it seems likely that Studies in Word Association was in fact the first work which he sent to Freud as it is listed as his first work kin the Jung bibliography section. could anyone confirm this? --minamato 19:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dune and the collective Unconscious

i seem to be posting on this article a lot today. i noticed that it said that the collective Unconscious is a main theme in the novel dune. could someone give me link for evidence to this? thanks.

--minamato 20:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freud and Jung

Can someone explain to me how this sentence is neutral?: "In effect, Jung's unconscious, as opposed to Freud's, serves a very positive role: the engine of the collective unconscious essential to human society and culture." Acornwithwings 00:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about the subject matter, but I would interpret the sentence as: 'Jung thinks the unconscious does good important things. Freud doesn't think that' Seems like a neutural statement of their opinions to me (assuming it's correct). What was your complaint with it? -Spyforthemoon 22:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If this was just a statement of Jung's point of view, that would be fine. However, this sentence states an opinion (that Jung's unconscious is positive, it calls the collective unconscious essential, etc) which is not attributed to Jung or anyone else. In effect, it by its wording and context it appears to endorse Jung's side of the argument. Jung thought that Freud's theory was negative and his own was positive; Wikipedia has no opinion on the matter. Acornwithwings 06:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I re-read that whole paragraph a few times, and the entire thing could probably use a combing-over. I feel a little unqualified to do it, knowing next to nothing about the subject matter. Do you think you could give it a shot? -Spyforthemoon 18:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I fiddled with it a bit; removed the "in effect" sentence and tried to npov it up a little. Unfortunately i can't do a whole lot since i don't really know a whole lot about jung either. I think Freud's side of the argument should be elaborated a bit.Acornwithwings 07:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I ended up editing the entire section. however, as i'm doing this in the middle of the night my sense of written english may not be the best anyway. most notably, i removed the information about the paper that was presented at the talk at which freud fainted, as it didn't seem to have much to do with the subject at hand. does anyone know at for what reason freud and jung met in munich? someone who knows more about this should look this section over.Acornwithwings 08:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] influences on popular culture

I broke up this rather large section into sub-categories, and made a rough effort to sort by date within that. This section could probably use some pruning, incorporating the most notable items into the rest of the article. Spyforthemoon 22:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Results 1 - 10 of about 966,000 for "Carl Jung"
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,060,000 for "C. G. Jung"

Results 1 - 10 of about 10,400 for "john tolkien".
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,320,000 for "jrr tolkien".
Results 1 - 10 of about 950,000 for "carl jung".
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,060,000 for "cg jung".

Results 1 - 10 of about 894,000 English pages for  "Carl Jung"
Results 1 - 10 of about 533,000 English pages for  "C. G. Jung"
Results 1 - 10 of about 202,000 English pages for  "Carl Gustav Jung"

[edit] Suggested merger

• Oppose - It has apparently been suggested that this article be merged with Jungian psychology. I think this is absurd, and cannot imagine why anyone would think it a good idea. The man is not the work, the work is not the man. --Orange Mike 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for what I hope would be obvious reasons. The merge suggestion was added without comment or explanation. I'm just going to remove it because honestly it's a bit silly. If anyone wants to readd it please go ahead. Voretus^talk 16:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, though perhaps some thoughtful reorganization is in order. There is perhaps some lack of clarity and unnecessary redundancy with this page, Jungian psychology, and Analytical psychology. Jcbutler 18:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jungian psychology is not Jung. Each article is more than long enough to stand on its own merit. Doczilla 03:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know- sure, the work is not the man, etc but it doesn't seem to be standard practice on wikipedia for the two to be seperate. it's certainly not true for Freud or any of the other psychoanalysts. jung's theory should be summarized on this page and then concepts that require more explanation can have their own pages (most already seem to). Acornwithwings 23:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested merger part II

I re-added the merge tag, because I don't think it was taken seriously and I think it should be. Here are the reasons why (which I also listed on the Jungian psychology talk page): 1. Every other thinker (psychoanalysts in particular) have one page for their bio AND a summary of their theory. 2. There is already a basic description of his theory on his page, and more could still be added if necessary. 3. Every concept on Jungian psychology that needs more explanation than it does or would on the bio page already has its own page. Discuss. Acornwithwings 17:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Jung is a person, Jungian psychology is a school of psychology Paul foord 21:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Freudian psychology redirects to Psychoanalysis, not to Sigmund Freud Paul foord 22:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but there isn't a Freud page, a Freudian psychology page AND a psychoanalysis page, whereas there is a Jung page, a Jungian psychology page and an Analytic psychology page. Everything on Jungian psychology should be covered by the Jung page and the Analytic psychology page. Acornwithwings 01:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose merger. Jungian psychology is not Jung. Each article is long enough to stand on its own merit. There are plenty of precedents for this. Doczilla 03:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you give examples? thx Acornwithwings 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Psychodynamics and Sigmund Freud. Pavlovian conditioning and Ivan Pavlov. Individual psychology and Alfred Adler. Reality theory and William Glasser. Gravity and Isaac Newton. Evolution and Charles Darwin. Relativity and Albert Einstein. However, Jungian psychology should be merged into Analytical psychology. User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 10:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose It's silly as there is much in Analytical Psych (aka Jungian psych) that is way beyond the scope of the Carl Jung article. --DanielCD 13:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

as i mentioned above, my problem isn't that there is a seperate page for his theory but that there seem to be two seperate pages for his theory (analytical psychology and jungian psychology), and one of them is this weird inbetween page that could be integrated into both carl jung and analytical psych. i think the idea that jungian psych and analytic psych should be merged is probably more appropriate- i will remove the merge tag from here and put it on those two pages and we can discuss it from there. Acornwithwings 01:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Jungian psychology has been merged into Analytical psychology, so this discussion is now moot. Acorn, thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. --Jcbutler 15:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism?

I'd like to see more information in this article about how his theories are regarded by psychologists today. Surely, like Freud, Jung must have his supporters and detractors. If anyone has any info on this, please add it.

I think those criticisms would go on the article for Jungian psychology, not on the bio article about the man himself. --Orange Mike 02:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Every other thinker that has a criticism section has it on their bio page, which is also usually contains at least a summary of their theory. I don't see why Jung shouldn't as well. Acornwithwings 23:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Hero Archetype' seemingly out of place?

The whole section entitled 'Hero Archetype' seems tacked on and without precedent. - 217.205.110.55 00:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] maybe not important...

Just for the records, I paste here an entry that has just been suppressed from 1907.

• May 13 - In a letter from Carl G. Jung to Sigmund Freud (one of several letters exchanged), Jung warns Freud that they are both criticized in a review of Jung's new book in Gaupp's Zentralblatt.^[1]

It may be not an important date and/or fact (as said in the comment of the edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1907&diff=106888871&oldid=106605816), but I don't know if this can be objectively said. I think a true information should never be suppressed from an Encyclopedia which aims at being as complete as possible (even though readability may come first...).— MFH:Talk 22:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jung's Analysis of Hitler as Possessed by the Aryan Unconscious, Inspiration of Miguel Serrano's Ideas

In several interviews and articles of the interwar period Jung analyzes Hitler as possessed by the collective Aryan unconscious.

"Hitler is a spiritual vessel, a demi-divinity; even better, a myth. Mussolini is a man."

"Hitler seemed like the 'double' of a real person, as if Hitler the man might be hiding inside like an appendix, and deliberately so concealed in order not to disturb the mechanism ... You know you could never talk to this man; because there is nobody there ... It is not an individual; it is an entire nation."

"His voice is that of at least 78 million Germans. He must shout, even in private conversation ... The voice he hears is that of the collective unconscious of his race."

Source: C.G. Jung Speaking: Interviews and Encounters, edited by William McGuire and R.F.C. Hull (London: Thames and Hudson, 1978), pp. 91-93, 115-135, 136-40. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.149.176.173 (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Relevant? The Philemon Foundation

I don't see the relevance of this section in this article. Seems selfpromotional... But, since this is my first time wiki'ing, I won't delete it yet - I may have misunderstood something... Any comments?

--Crimse 17:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronounciation?

I can't seem to find the IPA for the character ']' anywhere... was this put there by mistake? Iansmcl 01:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The brackets "[, ]" seem to be a way of specifying (enclosing) IPA characters, and are not themselves elements of IPA. --Blainster 20:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section ordering

This article should be primarily about the person CG Jung , rather than his psychology, so I believe the biography should have first position in the article. --Blainster 20:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I would like to see the analytical psychology information cut down quite a bit and biographical information expanded. — Sam 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)