Part I: Jung’s Values Compared to Modern Values
“Values are chiefly created by the quality of one’s subjective reactions. This is not to deny the existence of “objective” values altogether; only, their validity depends upon the consensus of opinion.”[1]
“Fantasy has its own irreducible value, for it is a psychic function that has its roots in the conscious and the unconscious alike, in the individual as much as in the collective.”[2]
“Values are quantitative estimates of energy.”[3]
“An intense primary function is a manifestation of libido, i.e., it is a highly charged energic process. But it is also a psychological value; …”[4]
“What most people overlook or seem unable to understand is the fact that I regard the psyche as real.”[5]
“People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own souls.”[6]
“Experience, not books, is what leads to understanding.”[7]
“The art of letting things happen, action through non-action, … became for me the key that opens the door to the way. We must be able to let things happen in the psyche.”[8]
“… God is an immediate experience… if we have the experience, we don’t need to believe.”[9]
“… the development of science and technology… has destroyed man’s metaphysical foundation.”[10]
“You get nowhere with theories. Try to be simple and… follow your nose…”[11]
As I was researching another essay, I came to the realization that, in terms of values, Jung was something of an “odd man out:” His values were different in so many ways from those of our modern world–just how different seemed to warrant more explanation, hence this essay. I will address this question–just how different?–in four headings: definitions of “value,” things Jung valued, Jung’s foci, and Jung’s attitudes–compared to our modern ideas.
How Jung Defined “Value” Compared to the Definition in Modern Culture
A modern dictionary defines the noun “value” as “real worth; proper price; worth; excellence; usefulness; importance; the power to buy; an equivalent or adequate return; meaning, effect or force; the number or amount represented by a symbol; an estimated worth; the relative length of a tone in music indicated by a note; a special quality of sound in speech; a speech sound equivalent to a letter or a phonetic symbol; the degree of lightness or darkness of a color; the relationship and effect of an object, spot of color, shadow, etc. to a whole painting;” as a verb: “to estimate the worth of, appraise; to think highly of; regard highly.”[12] This lengthy definition indicates how widely the word “value” is used in different contexts. For all its length, however, it misses the context in which Jung defined the term.
Jung defined “value” in a psychological context, as “something that has an effect,”[13] a “quantitative estimate of energy,”[14] or the “intensity”[15] of a feeling reaction we have to something. Jung saw “value” as “a possibility for the display of energy,”[16] and he recognized this can have both a positive and negative form, i.e. the negative, or neurotic value would bring “about useless and harmful manifestations of energy.”[17]
Note the term “quantitative.” Where most scientists ignore values because they are an intangible that cannot be weighed or measured,[18] Jung challenged this view. Jung felt that “in our collective moral and aesthetic values we have at our disposal not merely an objective system of value but an objective system of measurement[19]… a general scale of values which takes account only indirectly of subjective, that is to say, individual, psychological conditions.”[20]
How are values created? Jung believed they “are chiefly created by the quality of one’s subjective reactions.”[21] Different individuals are likely to have different values, or to regard certain things as more or less positive, helpful, or desirable, based on personal tastes, training, culture or preferences. We develop a set of values through the operation of our Feeling function: “Feeling informs you through its feeling-tones of the values of things. Feeling tells you for instance whether a thing is acceptable or agreeable or not. It tells you what a thing is worth to you.”[22]
Jung used a variety of adjectives to differentiate types of values. For example, in the 18 volumes of his Collected Works, Jung mentions absolute values,[23] affective values,[24] collective values,[25] conscious values,[26] discredited values,[27] emotional values,[28] ethical values,[29] extravert values,[30] feminine/female values,[31] general values,[32] heuristic values,[33] highest values,[34] impersonal values,[35] introvert values,[36] irrational values,[37] moral values,[38] negative values,[39] objective values,[40] personal values,[41] positive values,[42] psychological values,[43] reality values,[44] relative values,[45] spiritual values,[46] transformative values,[47] true values[48] and vital values.[49]
Only a few of these did Jung define, e.g. an “affective value” “gives the measure of the intensity of an idea;”[50] a “heuristic” value has “explanatory”[51] value; a “highest value” would be “an idea or thing” called “holy;”[52] “moral values” are “man-made and time-conditioned assertions or explanations… capable of all sorts of modifications;”[53] “spiritual values” are the “qualities of the soul [which] elude purely intellectual treatment;”[54] a “psychological value” is “a concept of intensity,”[55] “something that has an effect”[56] in a psychic context; a “negative value” is associated with neurotics;[57] an “objective value… depends upon the consensus of opinion,”[58] i.e. the regard or attitude the community or society has about the value; “irrational values” belong to children.[59]
A variety of actions relate to values, according to Jung: values can accumulate, creating a “highly charged energic process”[60] which Jung terms “libido;”[61] values can become transformative, and as such are regarded as “more valuable, better, higher, more spiritual”[62] than other values; values can reverse or change into their opposite (a reevaluation that often occurs at critical intervals in life);[63] values can disappear[64] or be lost;[65] and they can be reactivated[66] and also relativized.[67]
Things Jung Valued Compared to Our Modern Culture’s Evaluation
Jung put high value on many things that most people in modern culture either ignore or dismiss as nonsense. This difference is reflected in how he defined things compared to our valuations. For example, take:
Alchemy: Most people these days regard alchemy as a foolish endeavor trying to turn lead into gold.[68] The few people that might have some spiritual awareness might understand the goal was really enlightenment,[69] but not many modern people would share Jung’s understanding of the value of alchemy for how it illustrates the inner work of personal growth, and how closely it parallels the experiences of analysands in analytical psychology.[70]
Fantasy. Just as most people disparage alchemy, so we tend to regard fantasy as nonsense, trivial child’s play (unless, like Walt Disney, it gets commercialized and earns lots of money).[71] But Jung regarded fantasy as having “its own irreducible value, for it is a psychic function that has its roots in the conscious and the unconscious alike, in the individual as much as the collective.”[72] Acting on this understanding, Jung encouraged his patients to let their minds wander, to engage in imaginative activities, and be open to insights that can come in fantasies.[73]
God: Western religions usually personify the deity as a male being, “Father,”[74] while Jung understood the Divine more as a process,[75] or an experience,[76] the mysterium tremendum,[77] the numinosum,[78] and as the “Self,” the totality of an individual’s being and an inner source of both wisdom and security.[79]
Miracles: Credulity is not highly prized in our society, so few people will admit to believing in miracles: the pervasive influence of scientific materialism makes most people dismiss as nonsense something that violates the laws of matter.[80] Jung was not so narrow-minded. His life showed him that miracles are real occurrences, and he advised his students to be open to the miraculous.[81]
Money: Given the materialism of American society, money has a role far beyond its economic function, e.g. it can be a motivator of action (we avoid doing something if there is no money in it), a measure of success and/or prestige, a way to express the worth of something, a way to control others, a way to achieve happiness, a solution to problems, a key (for some people) to a sense of self-worth, and for nearly all Americans, a source of a feeling of security.[82] Jung, who grew up in poverty[83] and married a woman of great wealth,[84] recognized money as a feature of economic reality, as well as a factor in psychological health,[85] but he never regarded money as a source of true security. Why not? Because like all externals, it can be lost. Jesus had the same idea when he urged his followers to “lay up treasures in Heaven, where moths and rust can not consume them.”[86] Our greedy culture grabs on to the “treasures” while ignoring the key verb: “lay up” implies a process over time of building trust in the Self, the god within us,[87] and in this trust, which can never be lost, lies our true security.
Myth: We have two definitions for “myth:” as a statement or belief that is not true, or, in the literary sense, an old story akin to fairy tales and legends that might be read to children, or taught in a literature course.[88] In both senses, myth has little value to most people, but not to Jung: He saw myth as a key source of psychological insight, a repository of our human heritage, holding the wisdom and eternal truths of many archetypes, and he required his students to become deeply familiar with this repository of the world’s wisdom.[89]
Nature: Our culture’s definition of Nature–as a “gigantic toolshed”[90]–reflects our exploitative attitude toward the natural world, and this is a major cause for our current climate crisis. Growing up in the Swiss countryside, influenced by the German Romantic tradition of Friedrich Schelling,[91] Jung had a reverential attitude toward Nature, knowing how Nature could foster self-discovery. He recognized Mother Nature as the source of all life, a way to come “clean,”[92] a healing presence for the sick, a ground of all being, to be protected and enlisted in healing work, as the vix medicatrix naturae.[93]
Neurosis: Mainstream culture regards neurosis as a negative, and Jung would agree that it is better to be free of neuroses, but Jungians recognize that neurosis “is an attempt by the psyche to cure itself,”[94] and so it can be a goad to growth, and, given how our society is itself neurotic (so Jung understood), we all have this “burr under the saddle” to motivate us into analysis.
Power: The etymology of “power” is “to be able,” to make something happen.[95] In our culture, to be “powerful” is desirable, and this usually takes the form of being able to control others, to give orders that will then generate actions. Our society sees power as a zero-sum game (not to be shared, but carefully guarded)[96] and external (derived from one’s status, office or role).[97] Jung had a very different take on the concept: He saw power is isolating for the individual[98] and, as something external, it is vulnerable to loss: the private jet, the corner office, the Marine guards, the adulation of the crowd–all these are ex officio, and end when one leaves office or retires. True power is internal and develops over time with one’s psychological maturity and integration of the Self[99]–a power which can never be lost.
Psyche. As an intangible–something we cannot weigh, count or palpate–our materialistic culture tends to dismiss this concept, but, as the quote at the beginning of this essay indicates, Jung regarded the psyche as real.[100] He did so based on his empirical observations over decades of working his patients and his work with his own unconscious.
Regression: How often in recent years have I heard students lamenting that “we are going backwards!– regarding regression as a negative. But Jung considered regression as “the basic condition for the act of creation.”[101] and “a necessary phase of development.”[102] In this, he was drawing on his appreciation for the ancient philosophers who understood the cyclical, rhythmic nature of reality:[103] regression follows progression, which again turns into regression. Our desire to have constant progress is both unnatural and also undesirable, as we would never have time nor energy to assimilate the advances we had made. Times of regression afford us a pause, opportunities to take stock, to entertain new perspectives, and to create new avenues for growth and change when the cycle shifts once more to progress.
Time: Americans tend to reify time: we “make” time (by speeding to our destination); we “buy” time (when we procrastinate), and we “kill” time (when waiting at the DMV or doctor’s office)–all of it measured by the clock. In the same way, we have created “atomic clocks” which provide us extremely accurate information about this thing we value so much (“time is money,” as the old adage goes). Like all of us, Jung lived in “chronos time,” wore a wristwatch, and liked his patients to be punctual. But he also recognized the value of kairos time–the term for the process of unfoldment in natural systems, which is not measurable by clock or calendar.[104] An example is familiar: the doctor tells a pregnant woman that her “due date” is 36 weeks from her last period, but we all know the baby will arrive when it will–and this may be quite different from our calendrical calculations.[105] The alchemists whom Jung appreciated so much lived more in alignment with kairos time, only in part because accurate chronometers had yet to be invented, but more because their work–both inner and outer–relied on natural processes that defy meticulous measurement. Anyone who has had a Jungian analysis will recognize how the work has its own immeasurable timetable. How often I have had to tell my dream students that their focus on the clock and calendar will produce the same reaction that they would get in watching grass grow.
Truth: “True or false.” Our culture sees these as our two options, given our sense of “truth” as absolute. Jung saw truth as relative:[106] what is “true” in one time or one place might not be true in another, and what is true for one person in his/her particular situation might not be valid for a person in a very different circumstance. For Jung discernment–the alchemical action of discriminatio[107]–was a key human skill, something to consciously cultivate in the process of maturing into one’s individuation.
Things Jung Focused On Compared to Our Foci
Jung typed himself as an Introvert, Intuitive, Thinking type.[108] American society is quite the opposite, most Americans being Extraverts and Sensation types.[109] We emphasize team playing, sports, and group activities with external interests and focus. With our bias toward Sensation, we stress tangibles–stuff we can see, touch, taste, smell, measure and manipulate.[110] Jung’s focus was on the individual person and his/her inner life, with a stress on personal development–a focus that was measurable only in the epiphenomena which resulted from inner growth. These qualities were intangible and often the result of intuitive activities or inner knowings unique to the analysand.
Jung had little use for groups–he worked one-on-one with his patients and only reluctantly agreed to set up an Institute to teach his psychology[111]–and he constantly decried large masses of people.[112] To him, bigger was not better. By contrast, Americans love BIG–the big Mac, the Big Apple, etc. To Jung, nothing good could come from bigness or large groups. His focus was on the person in all his/her uniqueness.[113]
Typical of Extraverts, most Americans focus on doing, making things happen, especially things that might boost one’s ego. “Looking out for #1” is a bumper sticker that reflects the widespread focus on oneself, and this focus often takes a materialistic coloration, given the Sensate’s tendency to focus on stuff[114]–house, car, clothes, “bling.” Jung put much more emphasis on being–inward reflection, listening to the psyche’s guidance, coming to awareness of our “inner city”[115] and the reality of the Self–all of these inner energies that can serve as counterpoints to the ego. Rather than focus on materialism, Jung hated all forms of “-ism,”[116] and his Intuitive nature inclined him toward intangibles and more holistic approaches to living.
Both Jung and American culture share a focus on thinking, but Jung had very different emphases. For example, while mainstream culture tends to equate signs and symbols,[117] Jung recognized these are very different and he criticized Freud’s practice of reducing symbols to signs, thereby draining the symbols of their transformational power.[118] Most Americans see no difference between signs and symbols; Jung would beg to differ.
Likewise, he was critical of our focus on the rational, theoretical, instruction and, in health care, on curing. He warned us that
“Modern man does not understand how much his “rationalism” (which has destroyed his capacity to respond to numinous symbols and ideas) has put him at the mercy of the psychic ‘underworld’.”[119]
As much as Jung saw danger in rationalism, he valued the irrational aspects of our lives.[120] He recognized that there is a place for the irrational, the fantastical and the imaginative. As a scientist, Jung knew there was a place for theories, but in the discipline of psychology, he regarded theory “as the very devil.”[121] Why? Because it shifted the focus from the uniqueness of the individual being treated to the ideology or theory of the doctor, and, in so doing, it lost sight of the person in his/her uniqueness, and all too often would lead to the patient being forced on to the “Procrustean bed” of the psychiatrist’s theories.[122]
Jung had little use for conventional schooling: He saw it as “instruction,” with its focus on book learning and smarts, while he put the focus on the “education” of the individual student.[123] Latin scholar that he was, Jung knew that “education” means a “drawing forth”[124] from the student the inner gifts and talents that he/she had–a very different orientation from “pouring facts” into the child. Much more than in-school learning, Jung’s focus was on lifelong learning,[125] with lived experience being a much more vital source of growth and development.
Jung was a medical doctor, but he had caustic (even intemperate)[126] words for his profession, with its focus on allopathic curing rather than an orientation focused on the healing potentials of the patient himself (homeopathic,[127] drawing on the natural healing energies that lie within all of us). In the face of how greed has permeated the health care industry, Jung would be appalled at how persons have become little more than “income-generating biological structures”[128] in our modern world of medicine.
Attitudes and Assessments: Jung’s and Ours
Jung held a variety of attitudes that differed from our current ways of thinking. For example, the patriarchy encourages either/or thinking, which Jung felt was far too limiting: he urged his students to use both/and thinking–a thinking style that recognizes the polarity of life and is more likely to foster our holding the tension of opposites,[129] as well as helping us to appreciate paradox.[130] For most people in our world, coming upon a paradox induces a mind cramp. Logic has its place in Jung’s philosophy of science, but only a place: he never encouraged one-sidedness,[131] (which either/or thinking fosters) and he disliked how our Western intellect tended to prize logic and rationality above intuition and feeling, as I noted above.
While American culture is infatuated with technology (equating it with “progress”),[132] Jung had grave reservations about both modern devices (in his day, television and airplanes) and the people who create them:
“Our technical skill has grown to be so dangerous that the most urgent question today is not what more can be done in this line, but how the man who is entrusted with the control of this skill should be constituted, or how to alter the mind of Western man so that he would renounce his terrible skill. It is infinitely more important to strip him of the illusion of his power than to strengthen him still further in the mistaken idea that he can do everything he wills.”[133]
Jung was also disturbed about the sanguine attitude the modern world holds toward such inventions. He recognized that science develops tools, some of these (like microscopes and telescopes) doing much to make possible important discoveries about our world.[134] But much too often we operate in the belief that just because we have invented some gizmo, we should adopt it. Our culture gives little value to considering the appropriateness and implications of a new technology, to the point that many of our new “toys” have serious negative consequences in both our personal and our collective lives, e.g. the cell phone, which threatens our humanity in both our physical health and also our psychological, social and environmental well-being.[135]
Jung was alive when Crick and Watson worked out the structure of DNA. He would not have approved their calling their discovery a “dogma.”[136] Jung was explicit that there is no place for dogma in science:
“… to me dogma and science are incommensurable quantities which damage one another by mutual contamination. Dogma as a factor in religion is of inestimable value precisely because of its absolute standpoint. But when science dispenses with criticism and skepticism it degenerates into a sickly hot-house plant. One of the elements necessary to science is extreme uncertainty. Whenever science inclines towards dogma and shows a tendency to be impatient and fanatical, it is concealing a doubt which in all probability is justified and explaining away an uncertainty which is all too well founded.”[137]
Jung felt so strongly that dogma has no place in science that it was one of the causes of his break with Freud.[138]
Jung referred to himself as a scientist and empiricist, and it was with this orientation that he explored a wide range of fields, noting (with some dismay) to his friend Esther Harding his attraction to “unpopular things,”[139] like Ufos, alchemy, dreams, Gnosticism, mysteries, imagination and the unconscious. Our culture denigrates things like imagination (“Oh, that’s just your imagination”), dislikes mysteries (unless the case is solved in the 47 minutes allotted to the show between commercials), and has little regard for “dreamers.” Gnosticism is considered an obscure heresy,[140] and as for the unconscious, Jung knew how “People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own souls.”[141]
Another attitude Jung found unwise was our American take on history, as expressed in the oft-quoted words of Henry Ford: “History is more or less bunk.”[142] Au contraire, said Jung:
“Knowledge of the universal origins builds the bridge between the lost and abandoned world of the past and the still largely inconceivable world of the future. How should we lay hold of the future, how should we assimilate it, unless we are in possession of the human experience which the past has bequeathed to us? Dispossessed of this, we are without root and without perspective, defenseless dupes of whatever novelties the future may bring.”[143]
Just as a house needs a solid foundation to withstand the assaults of the elements, so we human beings need a sense of both our personal and collective roots if we hope to resist being duped by “whatever novelties”[144] arise.
Jung put high value on history[145]–on people knowing their roots and drawing lessons from their past. He also valued security–people feeling safe even in times of transition. We also would say we value security, but Jung had a very different understanding of what true security means.
Mention the word “security” in our society today and people will think of things like security systems, security companies, guards, the police, a well-paying job, a well-funded pension plan, Social Security income, a rich spouse, no debt, millions of dollars in the market, well-planned annuities etc.[146] But none of these would provide true security. Why not? Because every one of these things is external and therefore vulnerable to failure, incompetence, loss, death or insolvency.
Jung knew that the only true security is internal–the “treasures in Heaven”[147] mentioned above, which Jesus urged his followers to “lay up.” Given our materialism, most Americans focus on the word “treasures,” envisioning a big lottery jackpot, but Jung would have us focus on the verb–“laying up”–which implies a long-term habit of building or amassing–of what? “Treasures in Heaven” doesn’t resonate with most people, but it did with Jung. He knew it referred to trust in the Self, mentioned above as Jung’s term for the Divine which lives in each of us. Trust in the Self can allay our fears when we turn to it for guidance in daily living.[148] The key to inner security is the years-long process of building a track record of trust in one’s inner guidance and contact with the Self.
Conclusion
Jung lived in a different world from our own–a world with different definitions for words, different foci, and different attitudes–all of these reflecting a different culture, and different values. As a psychiatrist, a medical doctor, and a highly intuitive person, Jung felt a keen obligation to warn people of what might eventuate, given the trends of his time.[149] While he lived, he tried to restore or reclaim some of our most important values. This effort is the subject of the next essay.
Sue Mehrtens is the author of this and all the other blog essays on this site. The opinions expressed in these essays are her own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of other Jungian Center faculty or Board members. Honesty, as well as professional courtesy, require that you give proper attribution to the author if you post this essay elsewhere.
Bibliography
Chu, Ernest (2008), Soul Currency: Investing Your Inner Wealth for Fulfillment & Abundance. Novato CA: New World Library.
Ehrenfeld, David (1981), The Arrogance of Humanism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Giannini, John (2004), Compass of the Soul. Gainesville FL: Center for Application of Psychological Type.
Ginsberg, Morris (1973), “Progress in the Modern Era,” Dictionary of the History of Ideas, III. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Hagberg, Janet (1984), Real Power: Stages of Personal Power in Organizations. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Hannah, Barbara (1976), Jung: His Life and Work. New York; G.P. Putnam.
Jung, C.G (1960), “The Psychogenesis of Mental Disease,” Collected Works, 3. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1961), “Freud and Psychoanalysis,” Collected Works, 4. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1956), “Symbols of Transformation,” Collected Works, 5. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
_________(1971), “Psychological Types,” Collected Works, 6. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1966), “Two Essays on Analytical Psychology,” Collected Works 7. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
_________(1960), “The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche,” Collected Works (CW) 8. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
_________ (1959), “The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious,” Collected Works, 9i. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ _(1959), “Aion,” Collected Works, 9ii. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
_________ (1970), “Civilization in Transition,” CW 10. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
_________ (1969), “Psychology and Religion: West and East,” CW 11. Princeton University Press.
________ (1953), “Psychology and Alchemy,” CW 12. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1967), “Alchemical Stuides,” CW 13. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1963), “Mysterium Coniunctionis,” CW 14. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1966), “The Spirit in Man, Art and Literature,” Collected Works 15. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1954), “The Practice of Psychotherapy,” Collected Works 16. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1954), “The Development of Personality,” CW 17. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1976), “The Symbolic Life,” Collected Works 18. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1964), “Approaching the Unconscious,” Man and His Symbols. New York: Dell.
________ (1984), Seminar on Dream Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1998), Jung’s Seminar on Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, ed. James Jarrett. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kadey, Matthew (2022), “The Science of Chrononutrition,” Environmental Nutrition (October 2022), 4.
Keirsey, David & Marilyn Bates (1984), Please Understand Me. Del Mar CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.
Lewis, Charlton & Charles Short (1969), A Latin Dictionary. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Liddell & Scott (1978), An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
O’Connor, Peter (1985), Understanding Jung, Understanding Yourself. London: Methuen.
Otto, Rudolf (1958), The Idea of the Holy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pagels, Elaine (1979), The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage Books.
Quinn, Jane Bryant (2016), How to Make Your Money Last. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Three Initiates (1912), The Kybalion. Chicago: The Yogi Publication Society.
Winner, Langdon (1977), Autonomous Technology. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Wulf, Andrea (2022), “Can an Old Philosophy Help Us Solve a New Problem?” The New York Times (September 18, 2022), 6SR.
[1] Collected Works 5 ¶126. Hereafter Collected Works will be abbreviated CW.
[2] CW 7 ¶490.
[3] CW 8 ¶14.
[4] CW 6 ¶481.
[5] Ibid., 751.
[6] CW 12 ¶126.
[7] Ibid., ¶564.
[8] CW 13 ¶20.
[9] Jung (1998), 231.
[10] “Letter to Dorothy Thompson,” 23 September 1949; Letters, I, 536.
[11] “Letter to Dr. N,” 10 June 1950; Letters, I, 559.
[12] World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary, II, 2157.
[13] CW 3 ¶418.
[14] CW 8 ¶14.
[15] CW 9ii ¶52.
[16] CW 7 ¶71.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Tart (2009), 2, 11, 295.
[19] Jung understood that measurement of psychological values is possible “without any pretense of exact measurement.” CW 4 ¶418.
[20] CW 8 ¶14.
[21] Ibid.
[22] CW 18 ¶23.
[23] CW 7 ¶481.
[24] CW 9ii ¶53.
[25] CW 7 ¶459.
[26] Ibid. ¶347.
[27] Ibid. ¶325.
[28] CW 13 ¶341.
[29] CW 16 ¶384.
[30] CW 11 ¶770.
[31] CW 6 ¶399.
[32] CW 7 ¶515.
[33] Ibid. ¶216.
[34] Ibid. ¶394.
[35] Ibid. ¶229.
[36] CW 11 ¶770.
[37] CW 17 ¶81.
[38] CW 13 ¶230.
[39] CW 7 ¶71.
[40] CW 9ii ¶54.
[41] CW 7 ¶520.
[42] Ibid. ¶s51-52.
[43] CW 3 ¶418.
[44] CW 7 ¶350.
[45] Ibid. ¶115.
[46] CW 17 ¶81.
[47] CW 5 ¶553.
[48] CW 7 ¶261.
[49] Ibid. ¶481.
[50] CW 9ii ¶53.
[51] CW 7 ¶216.
[52] CW 11 ¶225.
[53] CW 13 ¶230.
[54] CW 17 ¶81.
[55] CW 14 ¶613.
[56] CW 3 ¶418.
[57] CW 7 ¶71.
[58] CW 5 ¶126.
[59] CW 17 ¶81
[60] CW 6 ¶481.
[61] Early in his career, Jung defined “libido” as “an energic expression for psychological values.” CW 3 ¶418. .
[62] CW 14 ¶613.
[63] CW 7 ¶116. Jung notes this especially in the elderly.
[64] CW 8 ¶17.
[65] CW 16 ¶280.
[66] CW 18 ¶1100.
[67] CW 16 ¶502.
[68] World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary, I, 49.
[69] CW 13 ¶248.
[70] O’Connor (1985), 106.
[71] It is not coincidental that both Disneyland and Disneyworld have a “fantasyland” component in these amusement parks: fantasy appeals to children and to the child in adults, and it nets the Disney corporation millions of dollars a year.
[72] CW 7 ¶490.
[73] CW 18 ¶1249.
[74] E.g. Luke 23:46.
[75] CW 6 ¶428.
[76] CW 9ii ¶141.
[77] Otto (1958), 19.
[78] CW 9ii ¶141.
[79] CW 12¶137.
[80] Tart (2009), 295.
[81] Jung (1984), 559. He gave this advice in his seminar on dream analysis.
[82] Chu (2008), 123.
[83] Jung would set off to school often with only a cup of milk for breakfast, as his family was so poor; Bair (2003), 31,
[84] Emma Rauschenbach was the second-richest woman in Switzerland, having inherited part of a watch factory from her father; ibid., 69, 81.
[85] CW 18 ¶99.
[86] Matt. 6:20.
[87] CW 7 ¶399.
[88] World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary, II, 1283.
[89] Jung (1984), 550.
[90] This phrase is Clarence Glacken’s, quote in Ehrenfeld (1981), 177.
[91] Wulf (2022), 6SR.
[92] Jung (1984), 142.
[93] Ibid.
[94] Sharp (1991), 58.
[95] From the Latin potis esse: “to be able, powerful;” Lewis & Short (1969), 1403-1404.
[96] Schaef (1985), 124.
[97] E.g. the CEO’s corner office, private secretary, title etc.; for a detailed discussion of the perks of external power, and how it is not real power, see Hagberg (1984).
[98] “Letter to Mrs. C,” 21 May 1957; Letters, II, 361.
[99] CW 12 ¶37.
[100] CW 11 ¶751.
[101] CW 4 ¶406.
[102] CW 8 ¶69.
[103] Ibid. ¶60-76; cf. Three Initiates (1912), 159.
[104] CW 10 ¶585. The Greek means “the proper season or time for action;” Liddell & Scott (1978), 392.
[105] Another example comes from the emerging science of chrononutrition, which “studies the connection between the biological rhythms inherent in our body,” and the link between these rhythms, nutrition and health. It has long been known that jobs which ignore the body’s circadian rhythms (e.g. shift work, long-distance travel over time zones) pose health risks. Kadey (2022), 4.
[106] CW 7 ¶115.
[107] CW 9ii ¶185.
[108] Giannini (2004), 29-30.
[109] Keirsey & Bates (1984), 25.
[110] Ibid., 17-18.
[111] Hannah (1976), 295-296.
[112] CW 10 ¶s 538, 539 & 718; cf. CW 18 ¶1358.
[113] Cf. CW 17 ¶173 & CW 10 ¶s501-504.
[114] CW 6 ¶219.
[115] This is Jungian analyst Daryl Sharp’s term for what Jung termed our “inner world;” CW 7 ¶337.
[116] The “-ism” was one of Jung’s bugaboos; cf. CW 10 ¶469, CW 9i ¶617 & CW 8 ¶405; for an in-depth discussion, see the essay “The -ism,” archived on this blog site.
[117] E.g. the definition of “symbol” as “a letter, figure or sign,…” in the World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary, II, 1982.
[118] CW 6 ¶819.
[119] Jung (1964), 84.
[120] CW 7 ¶350.
[121] CW 17, p. 7.
[122] Ibid. ¶181.
[123] Ibid., ¶107a.
[124] Latin ex + ducere; Lewis & Short (1969), 627.
[125] CW 17 ¶s 109-110.
[126] E.g. calling a doctor a “stupid shitbag;” “Letter to Walter Robert Corti,” 30 April 1929; Letters I, 65.
[127] The Greek roots (homoios and pathos mean “like suffering”, as opposed to the allopathic system (which treats patients using unlike/foreign substances).
[128] This is not my term. I read it years ago in a source I cannot now recall. It might have been coined by Uwe Reinhardt, a Princeton University economics professor whose specialty is health care economics.
[129] CW 10 ¶496; cf. CW 5 ¶375.
[130] CW 16 ¶384.
[131] CW 7 ¶115.
[132] Ginsberg (1973), III, 648.
[133] CW 11 ¶869.
[134] CW 5 ¶22.
[135] On the need for society to evaluate emerging technologies, see Winner (1977); on the multiple dangers of cell phones, see the essay “Jung and the Cell Phone,” archived on this blog site. The development of Artificial Intelligence is a current concern much in the news in 2023.
[136] For information on the “central dogma of molecular biology,” see https://www.genome.gov/genetics/glossary/Central-Dogma
[137] CW 4 ¶746
[138] CW 17 ¶128.
[139] “Letter to M. Esther Harding,” (30 May 1957), Letters, II. 362.
[140] I.e. in “orthodox” circles; Pagels (1979), 102-118.
[141] CW 12 ¶126.
[142] “Interview with Charles Wheeler,” Chicago Tribune, May 25, 1916.
[143] CW 17 ¶250.
[144] Ibid.
[145] CW 18 ¶559. For an in-depth discussion of Jung’s stress on history, see the essay “The Value and Comfort of History,” archived on this blog site.
[146] Quinn (2016), 124-126.
[147] Matt. 6:20.
[148] CW 14, ¶704.
[149] E.g. the spread of nuclear weapons sparked by the Cold War, the “drive of the unconscious toward mass murder,” the beginnings of apocalyptic development, and the problem of overpopulation. “Letter to Adolf Keller, 25 February 1955; Letters, II, 229-230.
