BOOK REVIEWS (2013): R. Hayman’s (2001) A Life of Jung

26 February 2013

Summary (in One Sentence)

That the New York Times Book Review calls this work “meticulously researched” and “judicious” even though the author:

  • in one paragraph, provides a forgery of Jung’s text in lieu of an actual one
  • builds a case by juxtaposing widely disparate paragraphs out of context
  • misquotes, badly paraphrases, and effectively misrepresents Jung’s text
  • edits the text in such a way to invert the sense of a cited passage in Jung—making what Jung takes to be the beginning of therapy as its end

suggests it does not in fact meet even a minimal criteria for “meticulously researched” or “judicious”.

Pre-Disclaimer

Last year in 2012, I set myself the task to read at least ten pages per day, and now I’m not sure if I kept up. I have the same task this year, and I’ve added that I will write a book reaction for each one that I finish (or give up on, if I stop). These reactions will not be Amazon-type reviews, with synopses, background research done on the author or the book itself, unless that strikes me as necessary or if the book inspired me to that when I read it. In general, these amount to assessments of in what ways I found the book helpful somehow.jung-mandala

Consequently, I may provide spoilers, may misunderstand books or get stuff wrong, or get off on a gratuitous tear about the thing in some way, &c. I may say stupid stuff, poorly informed stuff. There are some in the world who expect everyone to be omniscient and can’t be bothered to engage in a human dialogue toward figuring out how to make the world a better place. To the extent that each reaction I offer for a book is a here’s what I found helpful about this, then it is further up to us (you, me, us) to correct, refine, trash and start over, this or whatever it is we see as potentially helpful toward making the world a better place. If you can’t be bothered to take up your end of that bargain, that’s part of the problem to be solved.

A Reaction To (Only a Part of): Hayman’s (2001)[1] A Life of Jung

In researching a Jungian term—”godlikeness”—I stumbled across the passage below from Hayman’s putative biography of Jung. Whenever one finds books about Jung, one may expect one of two things: apologists and slanderers—tertium non datur. We can reserve judgment which Hayman is, because my point focuses rather on the New York Times Book Review’s declaration of this book as “meticulously researched” and “judicious”.[2]

Let me be clear. I have only read the pages around the cited passage below, but my intent is not to address the book as a whole. Rather, I’m noting that there may be found serious enough errors in a randomly discovered passage of this book[3] to make the claim that it is meticulously researched or judicious seem untenable in general. It seems very unlikely that this would be the only such passage in Hayman’s book.

Toward this end, I offer two parts: sins of omission (non-meticulous misquotations) and sins of commission (injudicious misrepresentations). I address former first, because misrepresentations might be argued as simple ignorance on the part of a writer, but to incorrectly quote the writings of an author falls short of the most elementary standard for intellectual work, much less being evidence of “meticulous” work.

I first provide the whole passage (from page 207) from Hayman (2001) mostly for reference and orientation only. It needn’t be read for sense yet, but only to give an overview of what’s being examined. I do suggest you at least note the (seemingly four) passages where Jung’s words are quoted (the block quotes and the two passages I have underlined).

The Text: p. 207

Red Book - ship Jung explains the dangers of trying to fuse the collective and the personal psyche in analyzing a patient’s unconscious. It can be

Injurious both to the patient’s life-feeling and to his fellow men, if he has any power over his environment. Through his identification with the collective psyche he will infallibly try to force the demands of his unconscious upon others, for identity with the collective psyche always brings with it a feeling of universal validity – ‘godlikeness’ – which completely ignores all the differences in the psychology of his fellows.

Jung may have been telling himself not to abuse his power over people who believed he could put them in touch with the god inside them, but he was also trying to contradict rumours that he was unstable.

According to him, the neurotic participates more fully than the normal person in the life of the unconscious. By reinstating what has been repressed, analysis enlarges consciousness to include ‘certain fundamental, general and impersonal characteristics of humanity’.

Repression of the collective psyche is essential to the development of the personality, since collective psychology and personal psychology exclude one another up to a point. Individual personality is based on a persona—the mask worn by the collective psyche to mislead other people and oneself into believing that one is not simply acting a role through which the collective psyche speaks.

In schizophrenia, the unconscious usurps the reality function, substituting its own reality. For the sane patient, there are two possible escapes from the condition of godlikeness. One is to restore the persona through a reductive analysis; the other is to ‘explain the unconscious in terms of the archaic psychology of primitives’  (207).

Sins of Omission

The absence of pages numbers or references provides the most immediately glaring omission,[4] giving little to no clue whence Hayman three times quotes passages from Jung’s writings (although doubtless you counted four quotations in the above—two block quotations and the two underlined phrases in Hayman’s single-quote quotation marks).[5] This mystery of three becoming four[6] arises because Hayman (2001) uses block quotation for:

Repression of the collective psyche is essential to the development of the personality, since collective psychology and personal psychology exclude one another up to a point. Individual personality is based on a persona—the mask worn by the collective psyche to mislead other people and oneself into believing that one is not simply acting a role through which the collective psyche speaks.

But nowhere in Jung’s writing does the above quotation occur; Hayman rather concatenates and paraphrases widely separated material.[7] (the details of this are provided below in note 9).

This is decidedly not meticulous work.

By contrast, the first passage cited originates in Jung’s writings (Collected Works 7, ¶240):[8]

Injurious both to the patient’s life-feeling and to his fellow men, if he has any power over his environment. Through his identification with the collective psyche he will infallibly try to force the demands of his unconscious upon others, for identity with the collective psyche always brings with it a feeling of universal validity – ‘godlikeness’ – which completely ignores all the differences in the psychology of his fellows.

with the exception of the underlined word, which is “personal psyche” in Jung’s original. Mistranscribing “psychology of his fellows” for “personal psyche of his fellows” does actually change the emphasis of the passage—specifically, that Jung is contrasting effects of the collective psyche and the effects of the personal psyche—but since meticulous means “characterized by very precise, conscientious attention to details,”[9] even this seemingly small  error runs contrary to a standard of meticulousness.

red bookWhile the publication history for most of Jung’s texts exhibits all of the typical variance, revision, early and late texts, &c, one finds in most (and virtually all major) writers, in this particular case, wherever Hayman got this passage from, he follows exactly the version included in Jung’s (1966) Collected Works (except for the British English usage of single quotation marks around “godlikeness”). I assume this is his source.[10]

A problem arises, however, when he cites the phrase “explain the unconscious in terms of the archaic psychology of primitives” without taking account of the fact that it comes from Jung’s posthumous papers, written nearly half a century prior, and never prepared by him (or even intended) for publication.[11] This is like criticizing Ulysses because an earlier draft is at variance with the published text. Such a move does not constitute meticulous research.

When Hayman (2001) writes: “According to him, the neurotic participates more fully than the normal person in the life of the unconscious,” this may be plagiarism. The court of public opinion, or perhaps an academic professor, can decide whether this paraphrase, “the neurotic participates more fully than the normal person in the life of the unconscious” should have been further modified or restored to Jung’s original text: “the latter participates to a greater extent in the life of the unconscious than does the normal person” (CW7, ¶464f1, or see here). (In Jung, “the latter” refers to “the neurotic”.)

Similarly, and this will seem like a small point, Hayman paraphrases and quotes,

By reinstating what has been repressed, analysis enlarges consciousness to include ‘certain fundamental, general and impersonal characteristics of humanity’.

and then proceeds to the bogus quotation from above. The passage in Jung, which also includes a significant and lengthy footnote, actually reads:

By continuing the analysis we add to the personal consciousness certain fundamental, general and impersonal characteristics of humanity, thereby bringing about the inflation1 I have just described (CW7, ¶243, emphasis added).

This edit on Hayman’s part serves as segue to the next section, because whether it amounts to a sin of omission or commission might be debated.

Sins of Commission

While Hayman’s decision to elide Jung’s (content-significant) footnote[12] in this passage may be acceptable from the point of view of trying to summarize the matter, nonetheless the above edit decidedly changes the sense of Jung’s passage.[13]

Hayman’s version gives the impression that analysis has its end the enlarging the consciousness with impersonal characteristics. In fact, the reverse holds. For Jung, this enlargement, inflation, may sometimes be a necessary first step but whether it is a first step or one is already aswim in it, it denotes whenever it occurs the most manifest symptom to be addressed by therapy. Hayman’s paraphrase makes it sound as if enlargement is point of arrival for therapy whereas it is rather the point of departure. Omitting the phrase “thereby bringing about the inflation I have just describe” creates this impression.

Notwithstanding that one may frequently wish to summarize another writer, especially one as verbose as Jung, in the present case, Hayman’s (2001) decision to elide the footnote (included imagesin note 14 below or also here) also importantly changes the sense of the passage cited, precisely due to the emphasis Jung puts on inflation as a crucial term at this point in his psychological approach.  For Hayman to repress the mention of inflation while yoking together incongruous passages from different essays smacks of inflation itself—and not simply for being the Freudian error par excellence but, as Jung notes in his footnote, a common enough occurrence for humans generally. So for Hayman to have gone to all of this trouble simply to assert:

Jung may have been telling himself not to abuse his power over people who believed he could put them in touch with the god inside them, but he was also trying to contradict rumours that he was unstable.

one wonders not only where the evidence is for the two assertions here but also if this might rather be a case of Hayman mixing “the vapid with the gravid, [such that] when he ventures an opinion, it is often silly.”[2] If Hayman’s point is that Jung, as a human being, was subject to such psychological phenomenon as Jung’s psychology observed and described as common to human beings, then this is indeed saying very little. One of the great strengths of Jung’s psychology, in fact, is its capacity to explain even its exponent’s lapses, shadows, possessions, and the like in usefully analytic terms. The same does not seem to be true of Freudian analysis—most of all in the denial of denial on the part of its proponents.

If “Jung may have been telling himself not to abuse his power over people who believed he could put them in touch with the god inside them,” he made the warning publicly so that we all might benefit from not allowing ourselves to be possessed by godlikeness—an apt warning utterly more consequential than any merely trite implication that Jung wanted to convince people he was stable.[14] Hyman’s unsupported remarks here seem not judicious at all.

Regarding the bogus paragraph that begins, “Repression of the collective psyche is essential to the development of the personality,” to decide to offer a cobbled together paraphrase as if it is the cited author’s original work amounts to a forgery, and is thus most decidedly not judicious. As an introduction to Hayman’s work, this is a very, very poor first impression and it opens to question all of the other biographies he has written—the sheer number of them perhaps already being too many to deem credible. But let me be clear. Nothing demands a biographer do better than hackwork—popularizers of ideas and lives, the hagiographers and polemicists, are famous or notorious for such stuff. And when one writes an essay—as one might indeed meditate on the context and significance of every single word Jung ever uttered, wrote, or implied—broad-ranging conclusions might be reached without any especial demand for scholarly demonstration, because such things are generally beyond scholarly demonstration. Given that a repeated complaint about Hayman’s book is that it is not a biography (leaving out details of Jung’s relationship with his children, for instance), but rather more of a broadside on his work, whether this is true or not, then such shenanigans by Hyman start to smack more of ideology than biography. If that’s the ax he has to grind, then it’s far less likely that we’re in the presence of something judicious here.

It’s a particularly nice irony then that Hayman uses the verb “mislead” in his misquotation:

a persona—the mask worn by the collective psyche to mislead other people and oneself into believing that one is not simply acting a role through which the collective psyche speaks.

Whereas Jung’s original—we have to guess where exactly Hayman is elaborating his paraphrase from—reads:

[the persona] is, as its name implies, only the mask worn by the collective psyche, a mask that feigns individuality, making others and oneself believe that one is individual, whereas one is simply acting a role through which the collective psyche speaks (CW7, [¶245]¶ 466, emphasis in original)

jungs-red-book3If I wear a tail in public and that has the consequence of making people believe something, then that differs from me wearing a tail to mislead people into believing something. This is the crucial difference in the two passages. Per Hayman, if Jung had a persona (and we all do), then that persona misled other people, although Jung states immediately after the original passage I’ve cited above, “When we analyse the persona we strip off the mask” ([¶246], ¶466). Once again, Hayman’s implication that the persona is an end, something that misleads, whereas for Jung it is precisely the thing precisely not to be taken seriously, if progress in individuation is going to occur. Insofar as judicious means “having, or characterized by, good judgment or sound thinking,”[15] this kind of error betokens both poor judgment and unsound thinking.

Finally, Hayman (2001) concludes this passage by writing:

For the sane patient, there are two possible escapes from the condition of godlikeness. One is to restore the persona through a reductive analysis; the other is to ‘explain the unconscious in terms of the archaic psychology of primitives’ (207)

Hayman’s claim here gives the impression that that Jung’s (non-reductive) analysis would “explain the unconscious in terms of the archaic psychology of primitives”.  It seems rather Jung critiques both of these approaches. And while significant differences prevail between the earlier (1916) and later (1938) text, fortunately we needn’t go into every detail in this case.[16] Despite these differences, what both versions of Jung’s essay share in common at this juncture is an engagement with Freud’s and Adler’s theories, as the reductive analyses that Jung critiques. From the 1938 version of the essay:

Both theories fit the neurotic mentality so neatly that every case of neurosis can be explained by both theories at once. This highly remarkable fact, which any unprejudiced observer is bound to corroborate, can only rest on the circumstance that Freud’s “infantile eroticism” and Adler’s “power drive” are one and the same thing, regardless of the clash of opinions between the two schools. It is simply a fragment of uncontrolled, and at first uncontrollable, primordial instinct that comes to light in the phenomenon of transference. The archaic fantasy-forms that gradually reach the surface of consciousness are only a further proof of this (¶256).

In the 1916 version, Jung wrote (watch for the “or”):

The unbearable state of identity with the collective psyche drives the patient, as we have said, to some radical solution. Two ways are open to him for getting out of the condition of “godlikeness.” The first possibility is to try to re-establish regressively the previous persona by attempting to control the unconscious through the application of a reductive theory—by declaring, for instance, that it is “nothing but” repressed and long overdue infantile sexuality which would really be best replaced by the normal sexual function. This explanation is based on the undeniably sexual symbolism of the language of the unconscious and on its concretistic interpretation. Alternatively the power theory may be invoked and, relying on the equally undeniable power tendencies of the unconscious, one may interpret the feeling of “godlikeness” as “masculine protest,” as the infantile desire for domination and security. Or one may explain the unconscious in terms of the archaic psychology of primitives, an explanation that would not only cover both the sexual symbolism and the “godlike” power strivings that come to light in the unconscious material but would also seem to do justice to its religious, philosophical, and mythological aspects (¶471, emphasis added).

jung-red-book-dragonHayman’s misunderstanding, as I see it, is in mistaking Jung’s “or” as the pivot point in his argument, i.e., that option (1) proposes two (inadequate) reductive theories or option (2) proposes to “explain the unconscious in terms of the archaic psychology of primitives, an explanation that would not only cover both the sexual symbolism and the ‘godlike’ power strivings that come to light in the unconscious material but would also seem to do justice to its religious, philosophical, and mythological aspects” (¶471). Hayman fails to appreciate Jung’s use of the verb “explain”—Jung had few illusions if any that one could explain the unconscious, and so what he proposes here in fact are three inadequate attempts, although the third he describes would “seem to do justice to its religious, philosophical, and mythological aspects” (¶471).

Thus, this exhibits three inadequate approaches, not an either/or since, “In each case the conclusion will be the same, for what it amounts to is a repudiation of the unconscious as something everybody knows to be useless, infantile, devoid of sense, and altogether impossible and obsolete. After this devaluation, there is nothing to be done but shrug one’s shoulders resignedly” (¶472).[17] No matter how one tries to explain the unconscious, this purports a “nothing but” that will certainly not drain the unconscious of problematic energy (1916, ¶472) but might also not even affect anything therapeutic at all:

True enough, the doctor can always save his face with these theories and extricate himself from a painful situation more or less humanely. There are indeed patients with whom it is, or seems to be, unrewarding to go to greater lengths; but there are also cases where these procedures cause senseless psychic injury. In the case of [one patient] I dimly felt something of the sort, and I therefore abandoned my rationalistic attempts in order—with ill-concealed mistrust—to give nature a chance to correct what seemed to me to be her own foolishness. As already mentioned, this taught me something extraordinarily important, namely the existence of an unconscious self-regulation. Not only can the unconscious “wish,” it can also cancel its own wishes. This realization, of such immense importance for the integrity of the personality, must remain sealed to anyone who cannot get over the idea that it is simply a question of infantilism (1938, ¶257).

Here, then, we find the more central “or” in Jung’s argument—no reduction to a “nothing but” of any kind, but rather an intimation toward developing means (Jung referred to means as active imagination) for circumstancing this “wish correction” on the part of the unconscious, be that by transcendental overcoming or by integrating opposites.

Endnotes

[1] Hayman, R. (2001). A life of Jung. First American edition. New York: W.W. Norton.

[2] Another reviewer notes:

Swiss psychiatrist Jung (1875-1961) lived creatively, grandly, and sometimes irresponsibly. Spiritual, mystical, and at times schizoid, he brought us archetypes, the collective unconscious, introversion and extraversion, and anima and shadow, but his reputation suffers from affairs with patients, cultism, and apologies for Nazism. A biographer of Nietzsche, Sartre, Proust, Sylvia Plath, and Thomas Mann, Hayman knows German and retranslated parts of Jung’s Memories, Dreams, Reflections for this book, first published in England in 1999. But Jung’s complicated story lurches and tumbles in his hands. Research and life events are overpacked into paragraphs laced with orphan pronouns and non-sequiturs. Hayman mixes bit players with protagonists, the vapid with the gravid, and when he ventures an opinion, it is often silly, e.g., that patients benefit more from unstable than from stable therapists. Intrepid specialists may find some new material, but the great bulk is shamelessly derivative. Not recommended; libraries are much better off with Anthony Stevens’s On Jung (Princeton Univ., 1999. rev. ed.) or Frank McLynn’s Carl Gustav Jung (Thomas Dunne Bks: St. Martin’s, 1997). E. James Lieberman, George Washington Univ. Sch. of Medicine, Washington, DC (from here)

[3] Wouldn’t it be a funny coincidence were this the only passage in Hayman (2001) that suffers from this.

[4] From the general context of the book, one assumes that the quotations are drawing from Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, but the texts that are included in that book range from (unpublished earlier drafts in) 1912 to (revised essays collected in) 1966.

[5] In the following, I use the ¶ designations from Jung’s Collected Works for the same reason they exist; because multiple publications reprise any number of essays, texts, passages, &c, and the Collected Works provides a central reference point.

[6] An unconscious manifestation of the axiom of Mariah “One becomes two, two becomes three, and out of the third comes the one as the fourth”? (from here)

[7] The only sure place to find this “Jung quotation” is of course in Hayman (2001) here. Since Hayman seems to be drawing principally from one book (CW7), the exact phrasing “Repression of the collective psyche is essential to the development of the personality” might originate in the abstracts of Jung’s collected works, which were not written by him, “Repression of the collective psyche was necessary for the development of the civilized personality” (Abstract #000180, from here), but is more likely from, “Repression of the collective psyche was absolutely necessary for the development of personality” which occurs twice (CW7, p. 150, ¶237; p. 277, ¶459).  The reason the phrase occurs twice is because the cited essay exists in more than one form, two of which are included in CW7. Jung’s editors explain:

[First delivered as a lecture to the Zurich School for analytical psychology, 1916, and published the same year, in a French translation by M. Marsen, in the Archives de Psychologie (XVI, pp. 152–79) under the title “La Structure de l’inconscient.” The lecture appeared in English with the title “The Conception of the Unconscious” in Collected Papers on Analytical Psychology (2nd edn., 1917), and had evidently been translated from a German MS, which subsequently disappeared. For the first edition of the present volume a translation was made by Philip Maier from the French version. The German MS, titled “Über das Unbewusste und seine Inhalte,” came to light again only after Jung’s death in 1961. It contained a stratum of revisions an additions, in a later hand of the author’s, most of which were incorporated in the revised and expanded version, titled Die Beziehungen zwischen dem Ich und dem Unbewussten (1928), a translation of which forms Part II of the present volume. The MS did not, however, contain all the new material that was added in the 1928 version. In particular, section 5 (infra, pars. 480–521) was replaced by Part Two of that essay. ¶ [The text that now follows is a new translations from the newly discovered German MS. Additions that found their way into the 1928 version have not been included; additions that are not represented in that version are given in square brackets. To facilitate comparison between the 1916 and the final versions, the corresponding paragraph numbers of the latter are likewise given in square brackets. A similar but not identical presentation of the rediscovered MS is given in Vol. 7 of the Swiss edition.] (CW7, 1966, p. 269, f1).

To show what Hayman has done, it might be easiest to give a guided tour of his forgery:

 

Hayman (2001, p. 207)

Jung (1916)

Jung (1938)

#1

Repression of the collective psyche is essential to the development of the personality, since collective psychology and personal psychology exclude one another up to a point (207, emphasis added) Repression of the collective psyche was absolutely necessary for the development of the personality, since collective psychology and personal psychology exclude one another up to a point (¶459, emphasis added). Repression of the collective psyche was absolutely necessary for the development of personality (¶237)

#2

Individual personality is based on a persona [not found] [not found]

#3

the mask worn by the collective psyche to mislead other people and oneself into believing that one is not simply acting a role through which the collective psyche speaks. [the persona] is, as its name implies, only the mask worn by the collective psyche, a mask that feigns individuality, making others and oneself believe that one is individual, whereas one is simply acting a role through which the collective psyche speaks (¶466, emphasis in original) [the persona] is, as its name implies, only the mask worn by the collective psyche, a mask that feigns individuality, making others and oneself believe that one is individual, whereas one is simply acting a role through which the collective psyche speaks (¶245 emphasis in original)

Thus, we have #1 above (as a failure to quote correctly that betrays any claim to meticulous work and calls into question as well the judiciousness of the New York Times Book Review author who calls this book meticulously researched) compounded by #3 (a misleading paraphrase), #2 (the insertion of an outright misrepresentation) and all boiled together into a forgery presented as Jung’s own text. But in addition to misquotation, misleading paraphrasing, and misrepresentation outright, even if it made sense for Hayman to ignore Jung’s later (1938) publication on these topics in favor of a manuscript with a complicated history—Jung’s editors tumblr_lw9vyssFB81qcu0j0o1_500included this text to show the evolution of his ideas—it makes just as much sense to pretend that Jung’s framing of these topics extracted from his earlier work may be presented as emblematic of his later “method” as to yoke together snippets of text separated by at least seven paragraphs. Using the 1938 text, Hayman’s sentence #1 is on page 150, #2 doesn’t exist anywhere, and the material misparaphrased in #3 may be found on page 157; using the 1916 text, sentence #1 is on page 277, #2 does not exist, and the material in #3 may be found on page 281. Importantly, this span of seven and four pages, respectively, crosses the threshold of two major divisions in Jung’s essays (from “Phenomena Resulting from the Assimilation of the Unconscious” to “The Persona as a Segment of the Collective Psyche”). In both cases, it is as if Hayman’s insertion “Individual personality is based on a persona—” is meant to stand in for the missing pages, but this is in no way accurate much less adequate. Nor is this just a matter of splitting hairs—one might write off the difference between “Repression of the collective psyche is essential to the development of the personality” (Hayman, 2001) and “Repression of the collective psyche was absolutely necessary for the development of personality” (Jung, 1938, ¶237) as an innocent mistake quite negligible to Hayman’s point—without thereby ignoring or excusing the gaffe of the misquotation—but there’s more malfeasance here than that. Again that telling irony that Hayman resorted to the verb mislead here is hard not to appreciate.

[8] From Jung, CG (1966). Two essays on analytical psychology. 2d ed., rev. and augmented. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

[9] Clearly the original (now archaic) sense of the word as “timid, fearful, overly cautious” has given away to its more familiar sense; the etymology is still entertaining:

1530s, “fearful, timid,” from Latin meticulosus “fearful, timid,” literally “full of fear,” from metus “fear, dread, apprehension, anxiety,” of unknown origin. Sense of “fussy about details” is first recorded in English 1827, from French méticuleux “timorously fussy.” Related: Meticulosity.

[10] You can read the whole context of the passage here.

[11] (see here)

[12] (Jung’s footnote reads):

This phenomenon, which results from the extension of consciousness, is in no sense specific to analytical treatment. It occurs whenever people are overpowered by knowledge or by some new realization. “Knowledge puffeth up,” Paul writes to the Corinthians, for the new knowledge had turned the heads of many, as indeed constantly happens. The inflation has nothing to do with the kind of knowledge, but simply and solely with the fact that any new knowledge can so seize hold of a weak head  that he no longer sees and hears anything else. He is hypnotized by it, and instantly believes he has solved the riddle of the universe. But that is equivalent to almighty self-conceit. This process is such a general reaction that, in Genesis 2:17, eating of the tree of knowledge is represented as a deadly sin. It may not be immediately apparent why greater consciousness followed by self-conceit should be such a dangerous thing. Genesis represents the act of becoming conscious as a taboo infringement, as though knowledge meant that  sacrosanct barrier had been impiously overstepped. I think that Genesis is right in so far as every step toward greater consciousness is a kind of Promethean guilt: through knowledge, the gods as it were are robbed of their fire, that is, something that was the property  of the unconscious powers is torn out of its natural context and subordinated to the whims of the conscious mind. The man who has usurped the new knowledge suffers, however, a transformation or enlargement of consciousness, which no longer resembles that of his fellow men. He has raised himself above the human level of his age (“ye shall become like unto God”), but in so doing has alienated himself from humanity. The pain of this loneliness is the vengeance of the gods, for never again can he return to mankind. He is, as the myth says, chained to the lonely cliffs of the Caucasus, forsaken of God and man. (Collected Works 7, ¶243, footnote 1)

[13] All the more so considering the relative importance Jung gives to the word inflation in these essays (it occurs nine times) compared to two references to it in Hayman’s (2001) book. That’s nine references over 369 pages as opposed to two references over 560 pages.

[14] A stable/unstable dichotomy is an ignis fatuus. Better to subsume the terms as ranges within some equilibrium, but what’s at stake in the prospect of calling someone “crazy” has very little to do with one’s mental state and far more to do with how people are treating you in public life.

[15] The sense “meaning ‘careful, prudent’ is from c.1600” (see here).

[16] Compare pp. 160–5 (¶251–257) and pp. 282–4 (¶468–73).

[17] The remainder of the passage runs:

To the patient there seems to be no alternative, if he is to go on living rationally, but to reconstitute, as best he can, that segment of the collective psyche which we have called the persona, and quietly give up analysis, trying to forget if possible that he possesses an unconscious. He will take Faust’s words to heart:

This earthly circle I know well enough.
Towards the Beyond the view has been cut off;
Fool—who directs that way his dazzled eye,
Contrives himself a double in the sky!
Let him look round him here, not stray beyond;
To a sound man this world must needs respond.
To roam into eternity is vain!
What he perceives, he can attain.
Thus let him walk along his earthlong days;
Though phantoms haunt him, let him go his way,
And, moving on, to weal and woe assent—
He at each moment ever discontent.10Such a solution would be perfect if man were really able to shake off the unconscious, drain it of libido and render it inactive. But experience shows that it is not possible to drain the energy from the unconscious: it remains active, for it not only contains but is itself the source of libido from which the psychic elements flow.* It is therefore a delusion to think that some kind of magical theory or method the unconscious can be finally emptied of libido and thus, as it were, eliminated (¶258).

10 Faust, trans. By MacNeice, Part II, Act V, p. 283.

*From the 1916 version, this sentence here reads: “But experience shows that it is not possible to drain the energy from the unconscious: it remains active, for it not only contains but is itself the source of libido from which all of the psychic elements flow into us—the thought-feelings or feeling-thoughts, the still undifferentiated germs of formal thinking and feeling” ([¶258], 427).

bookred.79a

Advertisements

2 Responses to “BOOK REVIEWS (2013): R. Hayman’s (2001) A Life of Jung”

  1. Thanks for posting this. I’ve recently become very interested in Jung. This was great.

    • Snow Leopard said

      Glad you found it helpful. If you are feeling especially daring you can venture through all the places I discuss his stuff. It would probably be helpful on my part to identify some of the more chewy posts. Here’s the whole list (I think):

      https://panopticonsrus.wordpress.com/tag/jung/

      I found Psychological Types to be especially awesome, but Two essays on Analytical Psychology (despite some details that put bees in some people’s bonnets) is kind of a fundamental “go-to” text for the way he tries to get things done. I also recommend Thomas Moore’s Care of the Soul.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: