Carl Jung

[Rafiq]

Has anyone ever come across a Marxist criticism of this vulgarizer / scumbag? This is the piece of shit who New agers always quote and unsurprisingly was on several occasions accused of Nazi-sympathy. He may have not been openly a sympathizer, but he was a reactionary in the same sense, with all of this garbage about a "natural harmonious order". He was also a Sexist, a homophone and a racist piece of shit.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

My inherent alchemist/necromancer tendencies lead me to an interest in analytical psychology, even if the rational mind inside understands that some of it along with many of Jung's personal beliefs were bullshit.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

expand? i thought the collective consciousness was quite interesting but don't know him beyond that

[Rafiq]

expand? i thought the collective consciousness was quite interesting but don't know him beyond that

Collective consciousness was something informally already developed in Marxist thought, minus the spiritualist garbage. As in, collective class consciousness, commodity fetishism, etc, base superstructure complex.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

He was big on things like archetypes and delving deep within the subconscious to create a new, better self. Much of his work's are allegorical and somewhat dangerous (according to Jung, some of his deeper techniques require flirting with madness and toying with forces easily capable of overwhelming the mortal mind. On a more metaphysical plain, he also seems to be an acolyte of Abraxas, a rather dangerous entity that in both literal and metaphorical levels almost inevitably leads down the path of the Dark Side of the Force (corruption/templar tv trope)

[Rafiq]

He's capable of no such thing. He's a charlatan. Even more so than Lacan.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

He's capable of no such thing. He's a charlatan. Even more so than Lacan.

And in most cases that too.:)

[blake 3:17]

I think there's some Marxist attacks on Jung, but he was generally just ignored.

I am quite interested in certain parts of Jung's thought. Evolutionary psychology overlaps with Jung's collective unconscious in some areas which I think are just true.

There's some very interesting work in comparative mythology which springs largely from Jung.

[blake 3:17]

Collective consciousness was something informally already developed in Marxist thought, minus the spiritualist garbage. As in, collective class consciousness, commodity fetishism, etc, base superstructure complex.


Jung did not write about collective consciousness. He wrote about the collective unconscious.

Consciousness and the unconscious are so radically different that this discussion makes no sense.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

For literary analysis and peyote induced journeys within Jung's your man. For everything else, not so much

[Rafiq]

Jung did not write about collective consciousness. He wrote about the collective unconscious.

Consciousness and the unconscious are so radically different that this discussion makes no sense.

Sorry, yes, this is what I meant. Marx's theory of commodity fetishism proposed a similiar model, minus the spiritualist garbage.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I am tired of wikipedia Rafiqi (cute i know;)) explain commodity fetishism to me as i brush up on the collective unconscious.

[the last donut of the night]

Has anyone ever come across a Marxist criticism of this vulgarizer / scumbag? This is the piece of shit who New agers always quote and unsurprisingly was on several occasions accused of Nazi-sympathy. He may have not been openly a sympathizer, but he was a reactionary in the same sense, with all of this garbage about a "natural harmonious order". He was also a Sexist, a homophone and a racist piece of shit.

chiiiiiiiiiiill dude

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The German philosopher Ernst Bloch had a Marxist critique of Jung.Basically he felt that Jung's theory of archetypes, patterns buried deep in the human mind, may have some validity to it but felt Jung's view of the archetypes was reactionary, looking back to the "primevil ooze"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Bloch

With the above mentioned qualification, while I agree that the liberal/New Age/goddess/Marija Gimbutus/Jung/Joseph Campbell stuff can get intensely annoying, Carl Jung did have something to offer and had some valid insights into understanding mythology and religion.At the very least he codified and analyzed a huge number of mythological themes from around the world.

Bloch seems to have a more forward thinking version of this though.

[blake 3:17]

Sorry, yes, this is what I meant. Marx's theory of commodity fetishism proposed a similiar model, minus the spiritualist garbage.


Commodity fetishism is neither conscious or unconscious. It is a practice which dominates both individual and collective life in capitalist societies.

In defense of Jung, I'd suggest that there are fears and hopes which are given shape and form in symbols and are rational from "primitive" perspectives.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Did you just ask this question as an excuse to insult the guy?

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

i am tired of wikipedia rafiqi (cute i know;)) explain commodity fetishism to me as i brush up on the collective unconscious.


did you just ask this question as an excuse to insult the guy?

8947
.................................................. .....

[blake 3:17]

The German philosopher Ernst Bloch had a Marxist critique of Jung.Basically he felt that Jung's theory of archetypes, patterns buried deep in the human mind, may have some validity to it but felt Jung's view of the archetypes was reactionary, looking back to the "primevil ooze"


Wouldn't it actually be the ooze that is significant? Isn't it the the terror of spiders and blood that means more than the ideal of some noble fellow?

Anyways-- I'd be interested in anything you have to say on Bloch. He's the one Romantic Marxist I have not read more than a few words from.

I did like his reply to Lukacs on Expressionism -- it was totally obvious that Lukacs was incapable of looking at a painting and completely missed anything democratic to do with form or method in visual art.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

What I love most about revleft:
For the most part i have no idea what's going on.

[the last donut of the night]

i think jung can be at least credited for having used psychoanalysis to look at things that went beyond the individual

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

i think jung can be at least credited for having used psychoanalysis to look at things that went beyond the individual
Jung used analytical psychology. Psychoanalysis belongs to Freud (even though both men developed psychology together until Jung went crazy/enlightened)

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Collective consciousness was something informally already developed in Marxist thought, minus the spiritualist garbage. As in, collective class consciousness, commodity fetishism, etc, base superstructure complex.
that was what i was interested in. the collective consciousness concept rested well with my marxian understanding of consciousness and i was going to read further into it at some point. that's all i know the guy for. combines well with marx and also althusser who i have a lot of time for

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Collective UNCONSCIOUS. Rafiq was bull shitting

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

w/e. you know what i meant, pedant

[Rafiq]

Commodity fetishism is neither conscious or unconscious. It is a practice which dominates both individual and collective life in capitalist societies.

In defense of Jung, I'd suggest that there are fears and hopes which are given shape and form in symbols and are rational from "primitive" perspectives.

They don't know it, but they're doing it

[Rafiq]

Collective UNCONSCIOUS. Rafiq was bull shitting

Conscious, Unconscious, the point stands regardless. Or are you under the impression that on a conscious level those participating in the capitalist mode of production know exactly what they're doing, that the bourgeoisie does not exert it's interest through means of things like politics or ideology but literally is aware of the exact process they are sustaining. I suppose ever member of the bourgeoisie is a good Marxist, then.

Things like class interest are not intrinsically conscious. Sometimes they express themselves through ideology, like Communism. And on an unconscious level, it takes not an idiot to see the class based solidarity members of the bourgeoisie give each other. Social being determines consciousness, unconsciousness no less.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I see i've once again stumbled upon a battle of semantics. Jung's unconscious is not the same as the way your using it (your probably thinking in what is generally termed the subconscious (which in english means the same thing). Your strategy of linking the concepts is like saying oldy existentialism is the same as Sartre existentialism

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

He was big on things like archetypes and delving deep within the subconscious to create a new, better self. Much of his work's are allegorical and somewhat dangerous (according to Jung, some of his deeper techniques require flirting with madness and toying with forces easily capable of overwhelming the mortal mind. On a more metaphysical plain, he also seems to be an acolyte of Abraxas, a rather dangerous entity that in both literal and metaphorical levels almost inevitably leads down the path of the Dark Side of the Force (corruption/templar tv trope)
He certainly flirted with madness -- had a psychotic break around 1918 and mostly drew mandalas for a couple of years. He was an interesting figure. I think he was probably a rather excellent clinician. However, his theories don't amount to much. He does not have much standing in either academic or psychoanalytic circles.

I did, at one point, ponder why if you go into a Barnes and Noble in the middle section of the country, the psychology section will consist of works by Freud, Jung and self-help books. Freud, okay, he was a giant and a great writer, although most of his theories are not correct. Self-help appeals to American pragmatism (not to sound like a Healyite or anything). But this obscure and weird Swiss psychiatrist? Why do people read his stuff versus, Adler, Ferenczi, Rank, Hartmann, Winnicott, Fairbairn, Balint, etc.? I think it is his rather awful mysticism. Ultimately if you are looking for a magical and mystical view of the psyche and personality, there you have it. The US is really rather decadent and this is another sign of it.

[Rafiq]

I see i've once again stumbled upon a battle of semantics. Jung's unconscious is not the same as the way your using it (your probably thinking in what is generally termed the subconscious (which in english means the same thing). Your strategy of linking the concepts is like saying oldy existentialism is the same as Sartre existentialism

No, maybe not, but it is identical to that of Freud's and his rightful successors. Like I said, Jung's "collective consciousness" is spiritualist garbage. Instead of consciousness, unconsciousness, etc. being something determined by our social being, it is a product of something inherent to our minds, in the human species as a whole, interconnected. There is absolutely no scientific basis to validate this.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

No, maybe not, but it is identical to that of Freud's and his rightful successors. Like I said, Jung's "collective consciousness" is spiritualist garbage. Instead of consciousness, unconsciousness, etc. being something determined by our social being, it is a product of something inherent to our minds, in the human species as a whole, interconnected. There is absolutely no scientific basis to validate this.

I have transcended your ultra materialist model and have delved deep within the hypothetical. Where you ponder critiques of das capital, i lay the groundwork for mankind's seizure of the mantle (Halo4 reference!!!)

translation: there is more to life than what you can visually comprehend.

translation of translation: The political, the philosophical ad the metaphysical don't also seem to play nice

translation: Let us have our fun

extra info:
Freud and Jung developed psychology together. One stayed on the path of the mainstream and eventual decay while the other went batshit and strolled where man dares not tread. (but mostly he was crazy)

[Rafiq]

It always puzzles me how Idealists get by, saying to us (materialists) "Life is more complex then what you think it is". What? Is this not ironic? Is this not the embodiment of theoretical hypocrisy? We are materialists because the existing universe is much more complex than how human consciousness initially perceives it! The idealists will not dare to divulge into the most elementary of details regarding this "complexity". Instead, they will leave us a great big void to substitute for actual, real objective material facts. When we have these scientifically sustained objective facts to throw in their faces, they accuse us of reducing their void to "something simple". They cannot even articulate the fact that objective reality does indeed exist and yes, eventually, things can be reduced to something.

And you credit the charlatan with too much. If he really did go "batshit insane", perhaps this better signifies some sort of initial mental imparity than exposure to "Enlightenmentz". Where did he stroll? Any fool can make metaphysically grand claims.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

He strolled in crazyville. I'm not saying he was a prophet, i'm just implying that not everything can be truly understood.

[Astarte]

I am quite familiar with Carl Jung, having read several of his tracts. I have also read a substantial amount of Marxism, and Marxism-Leninism. I see no substantial correlation between Marxism and Jungianism beyond this; Marxism offers no real explanation of unconscious psychological processes and Jungianism offers no real explanation of class society, the state, and capitalism.

[Rafiq]

I am quite familiar with Carl Jung, having read several of his tracts. I have also read a substantial amount of Marxism, and Marxism-Leninism. I see no substantial correlation between Marxism and Jungianism beyond this; Marxism offers no real explanation of unconscious psychological processes and Jungianism offers no real explanation of class society, the state, and capitalism.

Marxism concerns the whole of human social behavior, or more specifically, materialism does. Carl Jung is clearly an Idealist.

[Grenzer]

Materialism holds that consciousness is determined by material being. Freud advocated rather specious nonsense that it is determined by what lies below the belt line.

I have not read any of Jung's works, but from the fact that many occultists I know hold him in high regard, I am not well inclined to think they are of much value.


I am quite familiar with Carl Jung, having read several of his tracts. I have also read a substantial amount of Marxism, and Marxism-Leninism. I see no substantial correlation between Marxism and Jungianism beyond this; Marxism offers no real explanation of unconscious psychological processes and Jungianism offers no real explanation of class society, the state, and capitalism.

Actually I think we can see there is a negative correlation between Marxism and Jungianism. While it is true that Marxism does not speak of "unconscious psychological processes" specifically, it does provide a framework for analyzing these things: materialism.

Does Jung acknowledge the objective existence and primacy of the material reality that exists independently of human sensations? Do his conclusions stem from the acceptance of this fundamental reality? They do not; his worldview runs in direct opposition to a scientific, materialist view of the world. The two systems are mutually exclusive, and have no compatibility.

[Astarte]

Materialism holds that consciousness is determined by material being. Freud advocated rather specious nonsense that it is determined by what lies below the belt line.

I have not read any of Jung's works, but from the fact that many occultists I know hold him in high regard, I am not well inclined to think they are of much value.

You should expose yourself to things you are unfamiliar with. It's good for mental development.




Actually I think we can see there is a negative correlation between Marxism and Jungianism. While it is true that Marxism does not speak of "unconscious psychological processes" specifically, it does provide a framework for analyzing these things: materialism.

If this is the case; that Marxism is a fertile ground for the study of human psychology, then there should be an abundance of great Marxist psychologists; can you point a few out to me? I would like to read some of them, since I like to learn about things that are unfamiliar to me.


Does Jung acknowledge the objective existence and primacy of the material reality that exists independently of human sensations?
Psychology is the study of the human psyche - its subject is thought, why would this a priori even be important unless one wishes to maintain dogmatic materialist purity at all costs?


Do his conclusions stem from the acceptance of this fundamental reality?
I see it is an unshakable fact now.


They do not; his worldview runs in direct opposition to a scientific, materialist view of the world. The two systems are mutually exclusive, and have no compatibility.
Unfortunately human consciousness, and its origins also run into direction opposition with the materialist world view. Where exactly in the brain is the seat of consciousness? Can you tell me? How can psychology, a science which studies this very seat of consciousness maintain a purely materialist position when no material seat of consciousness has yet to be located?

[Rafiq]

If this is the case; that Marxism is a fertile ground for the study of human psychology, then there should be an abundance of great Marxist psychologists; can you point a few out to me? I would like to read some of them, since I like to learn about things that are unfamiliar to me.

A simple google search on Freudo Marxists would bring you many names, however, there do exist genuinely traditional Marxist psychologists. They say Lacan married Freud and Marx as well, and there's others.


Unfortunately human consciousness, and its origins also run into direction opposition with the materialist world view. Where exactly in the brain is the seat of consciousness? Can you tell me? How can psychology, a science which studies this very seat of consciousness maintain a purely materialist position when no material seat of consciousness has yet to be located?


What are you talking about? Human consciousness is a direct product of the material world, it develops as a reflection of such. The brain of course is a material entity of which produces thought, and in this ironic sense, thought is literally a product of matter. Matter preceding thought as a formula of sorts applies to virtually almost everything, from sociology ("Matter" being the base, productive forces, etc.) to a study of the natural world and the development of humans on an evolutionary level. I don't know what you are trying to say about a "material seat of consciousness". Consciousness is obviously not material, but material forces precede consciousness, and when I say this I do not simply mean matter, as that is obvious. I mean dynamic and radical changes in social relations. Social being determines consciousness. This is very simple. I will give you an example of an idealist psychologist, Noam Chomsky, who asserts, without any evidence whatsoever to sustain this, that there exists a mechanism inside our brain that on an elementary level knows an alleged "universal linguistic system" from birth. Freud can be classified as an Idealist as well for asserting that the development of the unconscious is something that we are born with, something inristic to the brain. Only the difference here is that Freud provided the basis for a radical understanding of the brain, which can be easily converted to a materialist analysis, that the unconscious develops in accordance with said social relations, relations existent within the family, etc.

I do not know for sure as to whether Freud actually asserted we are born with this "oedipal" complex, etc. But I recall reading it somewhere.

[Grenzer]

You should expose yourself to things you are unfamiliar with. It's good for mental development.

The problem is that I do have familiarity with Jung. It is simply an established fact that he viewed humans as essentially spiritual beings. No one can deny it.

What results from this fact is not merely that Jung was an idealist, but that the cancerous effects of idealism permeated through nearly every facet of his thought. This makes it all the more difficult to turn the work "on its head" in a scientific materialist sense.

What is also known is that Freud, despite some idealist assumptions, did not share this flaw. From this alone, the work of excising idealist tumor and letting it stand in a scientific sense becomes easier, and that Freud, rather than Jung, should take precedence in adaption to Marxian thought. Rafiq addressed this somewhat.

It is my choice to arrange my relationship to the world according to what I know is real, rather than engage in a pointless struggle with the mere shadow of reality.

I intend on investigating Jung's work more thoroughly as part of a scholarly examination of shamanism and animism, which he supposedly wrote a bit on; but from a purely utilitarian perspective, his work seems dubious at best.

[Astarte]

What results from this fact is not merely that Jung was an idealist, but that the cancerous effects of idealism permeated through nearly every facet of his thought. This makes it all the more difficult to turn the work "on its head" in a scientific materialist sense.

By accepting Jungian analysis the only area of Marxian knowledge which can be affected is dialectical materialism, and this is only in respect to the field of knowledge known as psychology - and even still, the reason for this is that the dialectical process itself is well at work in the Jungian analysis of the psyche.

As for historical materialism, and even dialectical materialism in regards to wider natural processes this "cancerous idealism" of Jung's, which in essence is a form of dialectics applied to the psyche (for example the relationship of the Anima, Animus or Shadow to the Self), really is not detrimental to a sound Marxist interpretation of society and or understanding of historical materialism...



What is also known is that Freud, despite some idealist assumptions, did not share this flaw. From this alone, the work of excising idealist tumor and letting it stand in a scientific sense becomes easier, and that Freud, rather than Jung, should take precedence in adaption to Marxian thought. Rafiq addressed this somewhat.

Well, what is easiest is not always what is correct - having read Jung I feel that Freudian analysis, which reduces most of the human psyche to sexual drives is rather callow.

Sometimes the most interesting formations in history come about due to the interpenetration and synthesis of seemingly contradictory systems of thought - this is the very process of the dialectic in action.

Without the dialectical synthesis of Marxism from "German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism" as Lenin put it, we would not even be having this discussion right now. I think it is rather sectarian and stifling to the historical development of Marxism, and leftism generally to say "this brand of psychology is what a proper Marxist studies - and this one is dubious bullshit!"


It is my choice to arrange my relationship to the world according to what I know is real, rather than engage in a pointless struggle with the mere shadow of reality.
I agree, and likewise, the same is the case for myself

[Kenco Smooth]

Unfortunately human consciousness, and its origins also run into direction opposition with the materialist world view. Where exactly in the brain is the seat of consciousness? Can you tell me? How can psychology, a science which studies this very seat of consciousness maintain a purely materialist position when no material seat of consciousness has yet to be located?

It's been studied in such a manner for quite a while now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness


A simple google search on Freudo Marxists would bring you many names, however, there do exist genuinely traditional Marxist psychologists. They say Lacan married Freud and Marx as well, and there's others.


If Lacan is to be the poster boy of Marxist psychology then the field can be considered dead already.



. I mean dynamic and radical changes in social relations. Social being determines consciousness. This is very simple. I will give you an example of an idealist psychologist, Noam Chomsky, who asserts, without any evidence whatsoever to sustain this, that there exists a mechanism inside our brain that on an elementary level knows an alleged "universal linguistic system" from birth.

Are you genuinely trying to argue that the human mind is infinitely plastic in the face of social conditions? Because in terms of nativist psychology Chomsky's position is pretty minimal.

[Rafiq]

If Lacan is to be the poster boy of Marxist psychology then the field can be considered dead already.

They say. And though I do agree he was a charlatan he was at least insightful in certain regards and was much more useful than the likes of Carl Jung. To completely dismiss Lacan is absurd.


Are you genuinely trying to argue that the human mind is infinitely plastic in the face of social conditions? Because in terms of nativist psychology Chomsky's position is pretty minimal.


No, there are mechanisms inside the brain which do unquestionably effect our behavior. Though our language, which is entirely a social construct (and even bourgeois-intellectuals like Foucault recognized this) it's laws and, as Chomsky likes to say "rules" are not embedded inside of our brain, there is no magical linguistic mechanism which allows us to automatically understand language.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Materialism holds that consciousness is determined by material being. Freud advocated rather specious nonsense that it is determined by what lies below the belt line.

I have not read any of Jung's works, but from the fact that many occultists I know hold him in high regard, I am not well inclined to think they are of much value.



Actually I think we can see there is a negative correlation between Marxism and Jungianism. While it is true that Marxism does not speak of "unconscious psychological processes" specifically, it does provide a framework for analyzing these things: materialism.

Does Jung acknowledge the objective existence and primacy of the material reality that exists independently of human sensations? Do his conclusions stem from the acceptance of this fundamental reality? They do not; his worldview runs in direct opposition to a scientific, materialist view of the world. The two systems are mutually exclusive, and have no compatibility.
Mysticism is a core tenet of Jung's system. Freud railed against this, btw. Of course, Jung would argue that his system was most scientific. It was not. While I am no Freudian, I think you do the man an injustice by grossly oversimplifying what he said.

[statichaos]

i think jung can be at least credited for having used psychoanalysis to look at things that went beyond the individual

I agree with that. Also, many of his insights regarding why we believe what we believe in terms of the human experience, and our tendency to shape narratives within our lives can be quite useful, even if there's quite a bit of chaff that one must separate from the wheat. He's a damned sight better than Freud, for sure.

[Lord Daedra]

Mysticism is a core tenet of Jung's system. Freud railed against this, btw. Of course, Jung would argue that his system was most scientific. It was not. While I am no Freudian, I think you do the man an injustice by grossly oversimplifying what he said.

I remember Freud talked about some sort of "oceanic feeling" that sounded alot like the Jungian collective unconscious before he (freud) dismissed it as a persons desire for a return to the complete narcissism of the babe (which is a stupid theory.)

[Lord Daedra]

After 70 pages of Liber Novus it is obvious that Jung was more mystic than psychologist. Instead of calling him mad like Freudists, it would make more sense to presume that Jung elaborated on and condensed the wests alchemical traditions and fused them with his understandings of the psyche and certain oriental beliefs (he was able to perform normalevery dayactivies and strenuous duties without being considered excessively peculiar so he shouldn't be labelled as a nut drooling in a corner). A couple of problems with his ideas quickly come up. His belief in the predicative value of dreams stemming from the collective unconscious (unless he meant to say that humanities collective unconscious operated like an organic Seldon Plan) and his belief in spirits muddles his individuation technique, blurring the line between internal and external forces (allthough the realm of the spirit is naturally confusing and myriad). His belief in a form of spiritual phylogeny also makes no sense due to his not clarifying where and when the initial archetypes arise, and seems to imply that perfect individuation cannot occur unless it is practiced by someone of a diverse enough genetic ancestry.