THE TERMS “PSYCHE” AND “PSYCHOLOGICAL”
These two concepts unfold in Jung’s own words as follows:
01
The psyche consists essentially of images. It is a series of images in the truest sense, not an accidental juxtaposition or sequence, but a structure that is throughout full of meaning and purpose; it is a “picturing” of vital activities. CW 8, par. 618
02
Anyone who knows the abysses of physiology will become dizzy at the thought of them, just as anyone who knows the psyche will be staggered by the thought that this amazing mirror-thing should ever attain anything approaching “knowledge.” CW 8, par. 620
03
The psyche, as a reflection of the world and man, is a thing of such infinite complexity that it can be observed and studied from a great many sides. But one would be forgetting that the psyche is the only phenomenon that is given to us immediately and, therefore, is the sine qua non of all experience. CW 8, par. 283
04
All our knowledge consists of the stuff of the psyche which, because it alone is immediate, is superlatively real. Here, then, is a reality to which the psychologist can appeal—namely, psychic reality. CW 8, par. 680
05
Every science is a function of the psyche, and all knowledge is rooted in it. The psyche is the greatest of all cosmic wonders and the sine qua non of the world as an object. It is in the highest degree odd that Western man, with but very few- and ever fewer-exceptions, apparently pays so little regard to this fact. Swamped by the knowledge of external objects, the subject of all knowledge has been temporarily eclipsed to the point of seeming non-existence. CW 8, par. 357
06
I know that very many people have difficulties with the word “psychological.” To put these critics at ease, I should like to add that no one knows what “psyche” is, and one knows just as little how far into nature “psyche” extends. A psychological truth is therefore just as good and respectable a thing as a physical truth, which limits itself to matter as the former does to the psyche. CW 8, par. 806
07
The psyche is the starting point of all human experience, and all the knowledge we have gained eventually leads back to it. The psyche is the beginning and end of all cognition. It is not only the object of its science, but the subject also. This gives psychology a unique place among all the other sciences. CW 8, par. 261
[Bold added for emphasis]
PSYCHOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING
Sumi:
Linda, what is psychological understanding according to Carl Jung?
Linda:
Psychological understanding points to the underlying psychic factors at play in human experiences. Psychic factors are the relevant psychic facts, processes and principles involved in the dynamics of different human experiences.
Sumi:
What human experiences are we talking about?
Linda:
Jung includes all human experiences, for example those in the field of philosophy, theology, economy, politics, history, computer science, medicine and linguistics. All sciences that are in any way concerned with human beings stand in need of psychological understanding.
Sumi:
What you are saying may sound to some individuals to be bold statements.
Linda:
Every science is a function of the psyche. Jung points out that mathematical thinking is also a psychic function, thanks to which matter can be organized in such a way as to break apart the mighty forces that bind the atoms together. He calls the psyche the mother of all our attempts to understand Nature. It is the task of psychology to study this mother. The psyche is immediate reality. When we talk about human experiences we are talking in the first place about psychic experiences. The domain of psychology encompasses all phenomena of the psyche.
Sumi:
Has psychological understanding anything to say about the conflict between the United States and Russia as projected on Ukraine?
Linda:
In a published interview in 1931 Jung says that it is quite impossible to think that these two diverse natures of America and Russia could or would merge: they would fight out their differences to the death. He points out that Europe stands between Russia and America.
In an article published as early as 1927 Jung writes that what does move more clearly into the foreground is Europe’s position midway between the Asiatic East and the American West. Europe now stands between two colossi, both uncouth in their form but implacably opposed. When Jung edited the script of the said 1931 interview for publishing purposes in 1959 he made a footnote, saying that the “East” has changed and has largely assumed the form of the “Russian Empire” but without losing its Asiatic character. Much took place after Jung’s death in 1961, but no one can brush aside the accuracy of his predictions. Ukraine has become an extension and graveyard for the conflict between America and Russia which began as early as 1945 after World War II and has later developed into what we see today, the extreme divide between West and East. In 2006 the new independent Russia initiated the creation of BRICS, an adaptive economic approach by the “East” to cope with Western economic thought. Carl Jung’s psychological understanding of the psychic factors and opposing forces between Eastern and Western nations is chilling.
Sumi:
From a Jungian perspective, how do you differentiate between a speculative viewpoint on human experience and one that is based on psychological understanding?
Linda:
A speculative viewpoint always lacks a solid basis of generally valid psychic principles, which is the prerequisite for real understanding. This is the reason why such views are called speculative. They lack a conceptual line of thought. Speculation states. Understanding concludes.
Sumi:
I want to come back to Carl Jung’s profound psychological understanding of the relations between Russia and America, East and West and Europe’s midway position in the broader picture. What can we take from it?
Linda:
What strikes me is how early on Jung made these crucial observations. He recognised changes in the relations and dynamics between these nations already in the very outset. It demonstrates empirical psychology’s ability to make observations and predictions based on generally valid principles, a requirement for any science. No science today concerned with human beings can do without Carl Jung’s Analytical Psychology.
Sumi: Thank you.
THE MODERN HUMAN
Sumi:
Elmarie, how does Carl Jung use the term “modern” in his psychology?
Elmarie:
Very precisely. For Jung the meaning of the term “modern” depends on the said conceptual relation. He differentiates for example the characteristics of modern man, modern woman, modern science, modern philosophy, modern theology, modern psychiatry and modern psychology.
Sumi:
Let’s put the term “modern” aside for the moment. What exactly does Jung mean when he speaks of “man” or “woman?”
Elmarie:
He refers to the psychic world of individual human beings in general, to their state of consciousness, and psychological mode of life. All this belongs to the subject-matter of psychology. Jung’s point of view is purely psychological. It differs for instance from that of the biological anthropologist who is concerned, among others, with the evolution of human beings from a purely biological perspective.
Sumi:
Can we speak of the evolution of the psyche?
Elmarie:
Rightly so. Just as the human body connects us with the mammals and displays numerous vestiges of earlier evolutionary stages going back even to the reptilian age, so the human psyche is a product of evolution. When we were still animal in the biological sense of the word, we had a pre-human psyche that functioned wholly instinctively and autonomously, thus unconsciously. Viewed from a purely psychological perspective, Homo sapiens is defined by having a relative say in matters by becoming gradually conscious over the span of evolutionary time.
Sumi:
What defines the psychological “man” or “woman” as being modern?
Elmarie:
“Modern human” relates to the optimization of individual consciousness. A modern human is one who has passed from an “unproblematic” state of consciousness to a problematical one. The minimum requirement for being a modern human is the sufficient development of one’s principal decision-making function in relation to one’s own unique individuality.
The question one should ask oneself is: Do I apply my mind more in accordance with the formulas devised by others or do I use it in accordance with my own psychological peculiarity? Uniqueness, singularity and peculiarity are the keywords that define the modern human. The modern human is the person of the immediate present and conscious to a superlative degree. Modern man and modern women are oriented to modern problems, that is to say, problems which have just arisen and whose answers still lie in the future. They want to know―to experience―for themselves. The modern individual is “unhistorical” and “sinful” in the Promethean sense of the word―one who is stealing fire from the gods. Such an individual is different and therefore questionable and suspect.
Sumi:
How does Jung define humans who are not psychologically “modern?”
Elmarie:
Their psychological state is “unproblematical.” They are the middle-of-the-road people. They judge others mainly by emotions and show that their chief, and perhaps only, criterion is emotion. They are content with belief, philosophical suppositions, and speculation. They have nothing constructive to offer others, except, condemnation and pointing fingers.
Sumi:
Thank you Elmarie. I must say, Analytical Psychology is quite confrontational. The question for me is: Who am I, the one or the other?
THE MAIN CONSTRAINT IN DECISION-MAKING RESEARCH
Sumi:
Frederik, you need no introduction. Thank you for your time today. The question I would like to put to you today is, what do you think is the main constraint for scientists in their quest to understand human decision-making?
Frederik:
The lack of research focus on the decision-making processes of individuals.
Sumi:
What about Herbert Simon’s work on decision-making?
Frederik:
Simon did his main research within organizations. When investigators combine the term “decision-making” with the term “organization” or “group”, there is often an underlying assumption that all people approach problems and make decisions in the same way. Simon assumes that the way in which we all make decisions is the same.
Sumi:
Are you saying that decision-making research in group context is a waste of time?
Frederik:
I am only saying that this type of investigation is based on the premise that all people make decisions in very much the same way. If scientists want to test the said premise, they need first to gain insight in the decision-making processes of very many individuals.
Sumi:
There are many who believe that there is more than one approach to problems.
Frederik:
Belief is one thing, persuading an individual with a scientific mindset is quite a different matter. The scientific mindset requires an empirical method of investigation and wants to weigh up the raw hard facts. In my view, absolutely nobody has yet demonstrated empirically that there is more than just one way of decision-making, except for Carl Jung. However, his work on decision-making is so far advanced that very few have as yet come to terms with it and even fewer are able to apply it as the critical construct that it is.
Sumi:
Why is that?
Frederik:
People simply take a term at face value and off they go. They overlook empirical facts and dive superficially into Jung’s views and modify them before grasping them. His scientific work has been turned into an esoteric carnival.
Sumi:
Any final comments?
Frederik:
The SpaceX Starship project is aiming for Mars in the next decade while we humans know next to nothing about ourselves and how our minds work. To me that seems ironic.
SO MANY CONTRADICTORY INTERPRETATIONS OF JUNG’S WORK
Sumi:
Linda, I have been pondering for a long time on why there are so many contradictory interpretations of Carl Jung’s writings. Do the many interpretations express anything about Jung’s personal approach to problems and his way of decision-making?
Linda:
The manifold interpretations of Jung’s work confirm a psychological fact that Jung discovered. He demonstrates that our personal psychology and decision-making mindset influence our ability to fully grasp and present the views of others accurately. As a rule, people are simply incapable of fully grasping and appreciating any standpoint other than their own. This lack of understanding allows for individuals to blend their views with someone else’s viewpoint, and in doing so, they modify the said standpoint, in this case that of Jung. In such instances it is often more a matter of them speaking than Jung speaking.
Sumi:
But how do you stop the stream of misrepresentations?
Linda:
You can’t. It is inevitable. Individuals who misunderstand and misrepresent Jung or anybody else for that matter, are unconscious thereof. They believe themselves and have good intentions. That is the irony.
Sumi:
But there must be some way to better the situation.
Linda:
Only time can. The human psyche is structured to discover itself, piece by piece, in a sequence determined by its inherent structure. It is much like archeological excavations where you work from the top downwards. When enough people grasp the significance of a new piece of their own psychology things may get interesting.
Sumi:
And what piece of psychological understanding may be excavated next?
Linda:
You can never tell. But one thing is sure, the inventory of the most basic psychic phenomena is still incomplete. For instance, science in general has empirically little to offer on the problem of human decision-making. Do all humans approach problems and make decisions in a similar way? If not, what are the differences? What are the implications of this huge gap in psychological knowledge for the development of AI systems and in particular for Language Models?
Sumi:
You leave us with difficult questions to be contemplated. Could it be that we are overlooking facts that are right in front of us? How do we proceed from here?
THE PERSONALITY TYPES “HALLUCINATION”
Sumi:
Elmarie, I have often heard you referring to the personality types “hallucination.” Will you please comment on this?
Elmarie:
The personality types “movement” assumes an absolute correlation between Carl Jung’s work on decision-making mind-sets as set out in his book Psychological Types and their view of the term “personality.” The movement confuses and mixes up Jung’s decision-making mind-sets with their own view of “personality”, whatever it is. This explains their use of the non-scientific term “personality type” or “personality types.” Jung does not once use the term “personality types” in any of his works.
Sumi:
Why do you view the term “personality types” as non-scientific?
Elmarie:
The assumption that personality is typical is not supported by any research. Not a single study has been done to demonstrate this assumption. Nobody has ever laid claim to having discovered types of personality. This term has no empirical reference and is meaningless. In fact, common-sense discredits the assumption of personality types.
Sumi:
Is there a simple way for me to grasp the difference between Carl Jung’s type theory and the popular belief in personality types?
Elmarie:
Jung has demonstrated only decision-making processes to be typical. In contrast, the personality types “movement” erroneously assume that all psychic processes are typical and can be assigned to certain classes.
Sumi:
What is Jung’s view on the term “personality?”
Elmarie:
In short, personality is atypical and thus unique. Each and every individual is an exception to the rule. Even when we break down decision-making by a sharper characterization of certain typical differences, for example “thinking” versus “intuition”, the typical in thinking and the typical in intuition are restricted to a mere indication of the dominance of these functions. It is only when we delve deeper and wider into the full array of personalised mental products represented by a specific individual with a thinking mind-set that the term personality becomes applicable and relevant. The term “personality types” is a contradiction in terms.
Sumi:
Why do you refer to “personality types” as a “hallucination?”
Elmarie:
Just prompt AI on your phone and type in the phrase “who coined the psychological term personality types?” What does it say, Whither?
Sumi:
“Carl Jung, a Swiss psychologist, coined the term ‘type theory’ in his 1921 book Psychological Types.”
Elmarie:
AI confuses Jung’s decision-making type theory with personality types. AI is hallucinating!
Sumi:
Do you have a reference where I can read more about Jung’s view on “personality”?
Elmarie:
I do!