This video of an interview with Jung in
his old age kept me up late last night:
I come back to reading Jung every year
or two and have just finished reading the second edition of his
Symbols of Transformation.
Freud is very much in the background of this book, first written in
1912, which precipitated their estrangement. I appreciate and
identify with Jung's warmth, humor, enthusiasm and personal
character, that are so evident in the film, much more than with
Freud.
Sigmund Freud |
Auden's ode, “In Memory of Sigmund Freud,” written at the time of Freud's death in exile in London in
1939, humanizes Freud's “autocratic pose”
and “paternal strictness” as being “a protective coloration for
one who'd lived among enemies so long” and acknowledges that “often
he was wrong and, at times, absurd.”
Carl Gustav Jung |
But there is something about Jung, so
evident in that video, that rings my bell, whereas, when I think of
Freud, the first thing that comes to my mind is his statement in The
Interpretation of Dreams that the
tunnel-to-light-and-loved-ones vision in near-death experiences “is
nothing but” (sic) a memory of coming down the uterine canal at the
time of birth. That statement is not just protective coloring or
absurdity. It's mean, in my opinion.
Anyway, what struck me most during this
reading of Symbols of Transformation was that both
Freud and Jung accepted, at least at that time, what is basically a
hydraulic imagery of the mind! Freud used the word “libido” for
the fluid, and Jung preferred the phrase “psychic energy,” giving
it a broader and less sexual connotation, but still frequently used
the word “libido.” They speak of this fluid as becoming
“blocked,” “dammed,” “canaled,” “reverting,” “flowing
to other outlets,” and such, just the way you would speak of a
system of pipes or canals or some other hydraulic system.
This may seem like a little cavil, not
worthy of notice given the great matters involved, but once you have
studied any subject really deeply you find that it is just such a
metaphor or analogy that destroys what is most crucially important in
the subject for you or brings a lifetime's work to nought!
Here are just a few quotes from Symbols
of Transformation that tell the story:
p. 132. “the libido appears
subject to displacement, and in the form of 'libidinal affluxes' can
communicate itself to various other functions and regions of the body
which in themselves have nothing to do with sex. This fact led Freud
to compare the libido with a stream, which is divisible, can be
dammed up, overflows into collaterals, and so on.”
p. 169 “The blocking of the
libido leads to an accumulation of instinctuality and, in
consequence, to excesses and aberrations of all kinds.”
p. 135. “An interpretation in
terms of energy seemed to me better suited to the facts than the
doctrine set forth in Freud's Essays on the Theory of Sexuality. It
allowed me to identify 'psychic energy' with 'libido.'”
p. 139. “This brings us back to
our hypothesis that it is not the sexual instinct, but a kind of
neutral energy, which is responsible for the formation of such
symbols as light, fire, sun, and the like.”
Now, this sort of hydraulic imagery has
its usefulness, its real-world practicality. It could be argued, and
has been argued, that just about everything we know about dreams
today is footnoting to Freud and Jung. I myself can't imagine my own
life without having read Jung on dreams. But a true understanding of
symbols involves what I believe to be missing in almost all current
theory, namely the fact that the mutuality of a true symbol requires
that that both parties to the sharing of it have to be able to put
themselves in the place of the other in order to see what that other
holds the significance of the symbol to be. That “putting oneself
in the place of the other” is not hydraulics. It's love!