Importunate Widow to Unjust Judges of Jung

[ad_1]

Just more than a year ago I created plain my most important factors for disliking and distrusting Jung, and arguing why I believed Christians who regarded him as a far more sympathetic dialogue companion relative to Freud have been mistaken. I retract none of what I stated there, but I do want to note an essential qualification and new insight because then, and it really is all due to Justin Tse importuning me for some time–but in no way far more graciously and insightfully so than right here–to believe once more on Jung.

He is appropriate to do so each as a matter of intellectual justice, as it have been, as also for “propaedeutic” purposes: I am seeking forward to reading the forthcoming (August of this year) Dynamis of Healing: Patristic Theology and the Psyche by Pia Sophia Chaudhari (Fordham UP, 2019). To study that book aright demands, it appears to me, that I be far more cautious in my assessments about Jung, which I am glad to do. About this book the publisher tells us this:

This book explores how traces of the energies and dynamics of Orthodox Christian theology and anthropology could be observed in the clinical operate of depth psychology. Searching to theology to express its personal religious truths and to psychology to see no matter whether these truth claims show up in healing modalities, the author creatively engages each disciplines in order to highlight the possibilities for healing contained therein. Dynamis of Healing elucidates how theology and psychology are by no indicates fundamentally at odds with each and every other but rather can operate collectively in a gorgeous and strong synergia to address each the deepest demands and deepest desires of the human particular person for healing and flourishing.


To be far more cautious about Jung, I picked up once more (although with just about no recollection of the final time I study it) Jung’s Memories, Dreams, Reflections.Vast sections of it stay as I stated in my CWR piece: prolix, rambling, and really tedious.

There are, on the other hand, two insights I take away this time and had not carried out so ahead of: 1st, and rather minor, is the longstanding anxiousness (fetish? paranoia?) Jung had about Jesuits! This was amusing to study, and clearly if psychoanalysis did not exist it would be essential to invent it to fully grasp how such a worry gripped not a handful of of Jung’s generation (and ahead of him).

But the significant insight I take away is a single exactly where I believe Jung is totally appropriate: his judgment about Freud’s theories of sex, and specifically the way he held on to and defended that.

About Freud and his theory Jung writes this by way of introduction ahead of zeroing in on his point: “I had observed in Freud the eruption of unconscious religious aspects” (I would note right here that Ana-Maria Rizzuto, whom I discussed in 3 components, is the ideal particular person for in-depth study of this Paul Vitz is also valuable). This claim of Jung comes following he reports a discussion in between the two of them, which appears simultaneously plausible and also a bit cringe-generating: “I can nevertheless recall vividly how Freud stated to me: ‘My dear Jung, guarantee me in no way to abandon the sexual theory. That is the most important point of all. You see we should make a dogma of it, an unshakable bulwark’.”

At his ideal, as I argued at some length in my new All the things Hidden Shall Be Revealed: Ridding the Church of Abuses of Sex and Energy, Freud is the anti-dogmatist, the wonderful and welcome iconoclast who aids us pry ourselves away from false photos, idols, and ideologies. But, as Jung shows right here (if this is a accurate record of their conversation), he can also be one thing of a doctrinaire figure–although not practically on the level he is frequently portrayed as.

Of his theory of sex, then, Jung says that this was a replacement deity: “One particular point was clear: Freud, who had normally created substantially of his irreligiosity, had now constructed a dogma or rather, in location of a jealous God whom he had lost, he had substituted a further compelling image, that of sexuality. It was no much less insistent, exacting, domineering, threatening, and morally ambivalent than the original a single.”

Jung elaborates his point, and right here continues to make massive sense to me, saying of Freud that though he wanted his theories about sex to be observed as strictly biological, there was nonetheless and unavoidably one thing theological at operate in his arguments, and this was observed in “the emotionality with which he spoke of it that revealed the deeper components reverberating inside him. Essentially he wanted to teach–or so at least it seemed to me–that, regarded from inside, sexuality integrated spirituality” (my emphasis). Just so.

In the finish, then, on this challenge I believe Jung has the upper hand for noticing these issues, and for pressing property his point that “if Freud had offered somewhat far more consideration to the psychological truth that sexuality is numinous–each a god and a devil–he would not have remained bound inside the confines of a biological notion.”

To which let all the brethren say: Amen.

[ad_2]

Latest posts