Well, Jung is now officially closed, without any sort of closure—just the way I like it. We are on hiatus for a while. I am busy gearing up for teaching in the fall. AJ is busy perusing his future.

Looks like One Hundred Years of Solitude may be next, but not until well into the fall.

Sections 6 & 7

Section 6 is entitled "Self-Knowledge". For reasons unknown, I expected Jung to either describe what self-knowledge is, or put forth a few guidelines for its attainment, or both. Instead, he argues (as many have before) that most men of his time lack it--to deleterious ends. Of course, this is no surprise given the 5 preceding sections. What I do like about this part of the essay is Jung's description of those deleterious ends. One in particular stands out: in order to promote true relationships between people, i.e., "mutual understnding," individuals must have a commitment to self-knowledge. Without an understanding of oneself, one cannot hope to understand another. According to Jung, absolute states promote atomization to prevent solidarity among men. He says, "The more unrelated individuals are, the more consolidated the State becomes, and vice versa." So Jung removes the notion of solidarity or brotherhood or comradery from totalitarian mass movements: a move that I think is very powerful.

I think I know why this essay has been a struggle for me. As my first look at Jung, I wanted something systematic or programatic: a general foundation of his thought. But The Undiscovered Self is polemical. His audience already understands his brand of psychoanalysis. That being said, I did enjoy Jung's take on politics and history.

Sections 4 & 5

For me, the most interesting facet of section five is Jung's almost interchangeable use of "understanding oneself" and "self-knowledge." In section one, by contrast, he distinguishes between understanding and knowledge. So I expected him to do the same here. Perhaps the most important aspect of this section is Jung's formulation of the human psyche as being integral to the quest for understanding oneself. The psyche is founded upon archetypes, which arise from instinct a priori. The modern man--with his morals, laws, and committment to civility (imposed by institutions)--is afraid of his "animal" self. This fear presents an insurmountable barrier to self-knowledge. Hence, Jung advocates not merely an embracing of archetypes, but also a skilled reshaping of them for present, purposeful use.

I didn't give section five too much attention. I found a curious attack on logocentrism, which interested me: "The word has literally become our god...".

I must say that there is a lot in this late work which I'm surprised to find. I enjoyed Jung's characterization of "the mass man" as reverting to an infantile state of "happy-go-luckiness and irresponsibility." On the whole, though, I find myself questioning the way I'm reading his essay. I'm not chewing enough or I haven't the proper teeth to chew this work...

Section 4

We are getting it bit behind schedule. I think the holiday weekend has thrown us off. Oh, well.

I don’t have a lot to say about this section. It seems to me that I have read it before but I know I haven’t. I think he did a good job of foreshadowing for this and it touches on stuff from other essays of his that I have read: that is why I feel I have already read it.

Here are a few quotes I loved:

“A scientifically oriented psychology is bound to proceed abstractly; that is, it removes itself just sufficiently far from its object not to lose sight of it altogether.”

It is like trying to talk about moon rocks while firmly planted on Earth and having to samples on hand.

“It is therefore advisable to carry understanding only to the point where the balance between understanding and knowledge is reached, for understanding at all costs is injurious to both partners.”

I think this is a very important statement for him to make. At times it seems that he is really against knowledge, but he is not. He sounds like he is against it because he is attacking it as it is, and currently it has a strangle hold on the West. It is only in breaking it down and aggressively promoting the alternative, understanding, that a true balance can be found.

”A million zeros joined together do not, unfortunately, add up to one.”

So a society needs to be made up of individuals to be strong. Jung says, we have societies that are filled with non-individuals and so our societies are zeros. I don’t think it is that bad, but he does have a very good point; it takes individuals to make a decent society and societies of non-individuals are horrible things.

I’ll leave it there for now…

My Section 3

I think this chapter does run a long the same lines as the last. But few things do stick out in it for me.

PARTS OF THIS are things I can just imagine President Reagan reading and loving. Jung lacks the very provocative and colorful language (Evil Empire, etc.), which is good, but I think in places they would have really gotten on. Reagan found a way to break down the USSR from the inside by bankrupting them in an arms race. The problem is that the things about the West that Jung was afraid of were not address and are still not resolved.

THE FACT THAT the West and the Communists worked on the same materialistic assumptions is a great thing to point out. We are locked into a scientific and materialistic worldview that heralds progress towards goals that are as unattainable and often as harmful to the individual as the Marxists were. This we need to watch out for. I agree with this assessment very much and I wish more people would come to see it that way.

I AM LEAVING the rest of my comments out there in replies.

The Position of the West on the Question of Religion

Nothing profound to report:

Again, Jung locks onto the forces of collectivization--from within and without--on individuals. His idea and support of "religion" looks more and more like the promotion of humanism.

I'm anxious to read his sections on self-knowledge and understanding.