Jung as Neo-Pagan

[Born Free]

While having lunch today, I watched some local community TV, which tends to play quite a lot of Christian television (sharing the channel and unfortunately outweighing in airtime, a program on an outrageous local drag queen). I switch over to this channel occasionally during advertisement breaks to check out the stunning level of reasoning in evidence.

Most of the 'Christian content' is imported USA material, and today the woman was interviewing some psychiatrist, who was mouthing off at Jung. He was so patently a Christian apologist, but it was fascinating to watch the sloppy logic by which he tried to instill fear of Jung and a 'Jungian world view'. His whole argument relied totally on his audience being ignorant of Jung and his work, fearful, and incapable of reasoning through a line of logic.

The older I get, the more I am gobsmacked by the simplistic logic these people work out of, particularly as they were Catholics, and just last night I watched on TV one of the PBS/SBS series on the Popes. I have forgotten the name of this Pope somewhere in the 1500s, who had created the 'approved list' of books for Catholics to read, a list that did not include the Italian translation of the Bible, and which was only rescinded in 1966. At this time, the Church's phobia was trying to resist and shut down the reformation.

This Pope had dealt with two dissidents influenced by the reformation by having one publicly boiled in a vat of turpentine, tar and something else. The victim was immersed while the liquid was cold than a fire started under it, which resulted in the victim taking 15 minutes to die, apparently some fiendish new way to kill heretics, dreamt up by some God-loving psychopath in the emply of the Inquisition.

The 2nd person was politically too hot (pardon the pun) to publicly execute, so he was taken out in the bay, placed on a plank between two gondolas, after being weighted down. The two vessels then were rowed apart, returning to the shore without looking back.

Ah, don't you just love the inerrant word of God, those blessed with the Divine power to interpret its meaning, and their confidence in how to act in God's name in furthering Christ's loving example???

BTW, when this Pope died, crowds rioted in the city, burning several Church properties and raiding the premises and destroying many of the records of the Inquisition. This Pope also turned on the Jews, who had been invited to come to the city and set up businesses after they had been evicted from Spain in 1492. This Pope really ramped up the notion of the Jews as a cursed people, destined to wander the earth incessantly, because they crucified Christ.

I just love the Divine arrogance of those who are too busy saving the world to read their own arrogant violent history. As for mental health professionals who are religious apologists, the less said the better.

I wonder how much the rising awareness of Joseph Campell's work and through him, Jung, has fuelled this attack! Most people I know, can never look at religion the same again after being exposed to Campbell's work.

Daryl

[Jeff_Ricks]

Daryl,
Over the weekend I was able to attend the Saturday session of the Exmormon Foundation Conference. Bob McCue was one of the speakers, and what a fascinating presentation he gave! I can't remember the title but it was along the lines of, how to reconstruct a healthy life after deconstructing Mormonism. He had over 200 PowerPoint slides and wasn't able to show more than half of them but he still covered the subject well. One of the things he mentioned in his presentation was the "Stages" information that was developed in this forum. He specifically mentioned the diagram that you created (http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/pomopedia/Post-Mo_Metamap/) for aggregating the stages discussion thread, and recommended it to the audience as a useful tool. Thanks again for your work on it!

I have more to say about the conference that'll have to wait for later when I have time.

Jeff

[peter_mary]

One of the things he mentioned in his presentation was the "Stages" information that was developed in this forum. He specifically mentioned the diagram that you created (http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/pomopedia/Post-Mo_Metamap/) for aggregating the stages discussion thread, and recommended it to the audience as a useful tool. Thanks again for your work on it!

Jeff
A little outside validation is always nice, eh mate? :)

[free thinker]

Congradulations to postmo.org. Any endorsement from Mccue is notable.

What I like about McCue is his unrelenting intelligent approach to the deconstruction of mormonism. He does not need to employ any antagonism. I am certain he will help many as they try to heal the wounds caused by engagement in mormonism. I count myself as one.



ft

[Born Free]

A little outside validation is always nice, eh mate? :)
I never fail to be excited about what can be created when people focus their consciousness on defining a problem and being cooperative in creating solutions.

Each persons contribution fuels others thinking, and the process gains momentum.

Like Jeff, I am in awe of Bob's mind and the breadth of material he has his mind across.

Daryl

[Jeff_Ricks]

I never fail to be excited about what can be created when people focus their consciousness on defining a problem and being cooperative in creating solutions.

Each persons contribution fuels others thinking, and the process gains momentum.

Like Jeff, I am in awe of Bob's mind and the breadth of material he has his mind across.

DarylI don't think Bob would mind me sharing something that he told me when I was talking with him after his presentation. I asked him how he has the time to write so much well though out stuff, and he said it's from an "obsessive compulsiveness" that was triggered in him when he left Mormonism but is now waning. He said writing has been theraputic for him, which I think we all assumed was a factor. He also said that allowing himself to remain in this obsessive compulsive mode for so long has been somewhat a conscious choice for the purpose of forcing new neural patterns to overwrite the ones that were formed from his years in Mormonism. I like to think this forum serves some of the same purpose for us too. :)

Jeff

[Jeff_Ricks]

I never fail to be excited about what can be created when people focus their consciousness on defining a problem and being cooperative in creating solutions.

Each persons contribution fuels others thinking, and the process gains momentum.This is something that I've been turned on to over the last few years. The concept of collective intelligence is fascinating to me. Another thing that Bob mentioned in his presentation was a book titled, The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki. I bought my own copy yesterday and started reading it last night. In a nutshell, the book is about how "crowds" that consist of a broad spectrum of people (in terms of intelligence, skills, training) are better at making decisions and predicting outcomes than are so-called "experts." He uses many case studies to demonstrate his assertion. If you have any interest in the subject of collective intelligence I recommend that you look it up on Amazon and see what others are saying about it.

Jeff

[Born Free]

This is something that I've been turned on to over the last few years. The concept of collective intelligence is fascinating to me. Another thing that Bob mentioned in his presentation was a book titled, The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki. I bought my own copy yesterday and started reading it last night. In a nutshell, the book is about how "crowds" that consist of a broad spectrum of people (in terms of intelligence, skills, training) are better at making decisions and predicting outcomes than are so-called "experts." He uses many case studies to demonstrate his assertion. If you have any interest in the subject of collective intelligence I recommend that you look it up on Amazon and see what others are saying about it.

Jeff
From the review:

""Wise crowds" need (1) diversity of opinion; (2) independence of members from one another; (3) decentralization; and (4) a good method for aggregating opinions. The diversity brings in different information; independence keeps people from being swayed by a single opinion leader; people's errors balance each other out; and including all opinions guarantees that the results are "smarter" than if a single expert had been in charge. Surowiecki's style is pleasantly informal, a tactical disguise for what might otherwise be rather dense material. He offers a great introduction to applied behavioral economics and game theory."

How does that list of 4 elements compare with how a certain organisation, near and dear to all our hearts, functions? Does that point to the likelihood of a Dumb Crowd?

Looks interesting.

I envy you guys beaing able to gather together. I was at Palm Springs last year on that weekend with a family commitment, but would love to have been able to get up to the gathering.

Daryl

[Jeff_Ricks]

Does Mormonism encourage diversity, independence, and decentralization? Bwahahahah!. Hell no!

Mormonism doesn't even aggregate information well, it sorts it, by deciding what is faith promoting and what isn't. According to Surowiecki, when the four areas are incorporated into a diverse crowd (in terms of training, intelligence, skills etc.) smart collective decision making is the result that is even better than if a crowd of experts where asked to come up with a decision on the problem in question. I guess this means the Mormonism as a whole is doomed to be a dumb organization and culture. It seems to be starting to catch up with them. I think the same is true of organized religions in general, because it by nature imposes on the "crowd" predetermined thinking rather than drawing from the crowd what smart thinking would be.

One example of the "wisdom of crowds" phenomenon that the book starts out with is the surprising fact that if you ask a group of people to guess how many jelly beans are in a jar, have them give you their guess without consulting anyone else in the group about what they intend to guess, and have an unbiased way of aggregating the information (you mathematically average their guesses) you will come up with very nearly the correct number even though everyone in the group was wrong. In other words, a collection of wrong answers, when aggregated, will produce the right answer. Doesn't make sense but his real-world examples are pretty compelling that it works.

Here at PostMormon.org I like to think that we incorporate to a degree the four elements, with independence probably being the weakest. In a forum like this a lot of information is exchanged back and for between group members. Some might argue that we don't encourage diversity either and maybe there's some truth to that. I like to think that in principle we're open to diversity and want diversity but in practice, information tends to get aggregated on-the-fly and that appears to be keeping out some diversity when in reality it might simply be an aggregation process that like all aggregation processes boils things down to the least common denominator, which inevitable leaves some information out. I see our information aggregator as the use of reason as opposed to faith for evaluating information. Reason uses a set of rules that (like mathematically averaging the bean guesses) generally spits out a relatively unbiased answer. Using faith as an aggregator almost insures that a significant bias will be imposed on the final answer, which insures a less than smart answer will result. My two bits worth.

Daryl, you touched on the subject of faith based psychology and don’t seem to like the combination much. It seems to me that it imposes too much predetermined thinking on the field of psychology, which I think it potentially harmful and even dangerous. I’m unclear on your assessment of Jung, who I'm sure you know was also a Christian. I like some of Jung’s ideas, and others I'm not comfortable with. I’m wondering what you think.

Jeff

[Edit: Also I recognize that according to the book I am wrong, and I will always be wrong, but at least some of what I think might be right. ]

[Jeff_Ricks]

Daryl, you touched on the subject of faith based psychology and don’t seem to like the combination much. It seems to me that it imposes too much predetermined thinking on the field of psychology, resulting in lesss than smart psychology, which I think is potentially harmful and even dangerous. I’m unclear on your assessment of Jung, who I'm sure you know was also a Christian. I like some of Jung’s ideas, and others I'm not comfortable with. I’m wondering what you think.This reminds me of something I almost forgot about. When my ex-wife and I were attending a local Baptist church years ago here in Utah while at the same time were having trouble with our marriage, the pastor of the church recommend us to a faith based marriage counselor. Every session included some "biblical wisdom" that really didn't seem to help much. The divorce was over differences with how to raise the kids. My ex is an ultra control freak (having had a childhood that made her that way -- not really her fault) and I tend to play things by ear when it comes to the kids. Biblical wisdom says, spare the rod and spoil the child. I prefer to spare the rod and take the time to try to understand the child, 'cause often I'm wrong. The counselor didn't agree. He said you have to show them who's boss -- don't give into them. I said, doesn't the Bible say, if your child asks you for bread do you give him a stone? He said that means something else but wasn't clear on what that something else was. Finally after a year of counseling, the smartest thing this guy told me was when he dumped biblical wisdom and told me that I should consider a separation and "if that doesn't wake her up" then I'd probably have to divorce her. Keep in mind that by then I'd given up on Christianity and she was latching even tighter to it. In other words, he was advising me the wayward atheist to divorce her, a true believer. So, my experience with faith based psychology hasn't been a good one...and in the end, spare the rod and listen to the child has proven to be the best advice. Even the Mormon side of my family is impressed with how well adjusted my kids seem to be, who lived with me after the divorce. My kids deserve as much credit as my "spare the rod" methodology does though.

Jeff

[Born Free]

This reminds me of something I almost forgot about. When my ex-wife and I were attending a local Baptist church years ago here in Utah while at the same time were having trouble with our marriage, the pastor of the church recommend us to a faith based marriage counselor. Every session included some "biblical wisdom" that really didn't seem to help much. The divorce was over differences with how to raise the kids. My ex is an ultra control freak (having had a childhood that made her that way -- not really her fault) and I tend to play things by ear when it comes to the kids. Biblical wisdom says, spare the rod and spoil the child. I prefer to spare the rod and take the time to try to understand the child, 'cause often I'm wrong. The counselor didn't agree. He said you have to show them who's boss -- don't give into them. I said, doesn't the Bible say, if your child asks you for bread do you give him a stone? He said that means something else but wasn't clear on what that something else was. Finally after a year of counseling, the smartest thing this guy told me was when he dumped biblical wisdom and told me that I should consider a separation and "if that doesn't wake her up" then I'd probably have to divorce her. Keep in mind that by then I'd given up on Christianity and she was latching even tighter to it. In other words, he was advising me the wayward atheist to divorce her, a true believer. So, my experience with faith based psychology hasn't been a good one...and in the end, spare the rod and listen to the child has proven to be the best advice. Even the Mormon side of my family is impressed with how well adjusted my kids seem to be, who lived with me after the divorce. My kids deserve as much credit as my "spare the rod" methodology does though.

Jeff
Jeff,

You might recall some time back I posted a link to a Psychology Today article entitled God as my Shrink. See:

http://www.postmormon.org/forum_vb/showthread.php?t=672

That article covers most my concerns on this subject.

That said, there is rising awareness of the utility of using a person's spirituality (meaning structure) as an element of good therapy. Sadly some secular therapists believe that it is their right to disparage religious beliefs they personally do not agree with, and frequently counsellors have a world view different from religious followers. I think that is a violation and most professional associations state the same in their ethical practice statements.

That leads into the more problematic area of where a practitioner believes that a person's religious belief/world view may actually be a major contributor and maintainer of their problems.

I am not aware that Jung was a Christian, but if that was true, I expect he would have been extremely liberal and progressive. His work would suggest strongly that he would have taken little scripture literally, and more likely looked for the underlying themes and their appeal.

Back to faith-based psychology, I tend to believe the words are mutually exclusive. Psychology is rooted in philosophy, in turn the word meaning 'the love of Sophia (wisdom)', which I believe would put it at odds with faith. Where as 'faith' puts in place a filter through which all is filtered, true science should be truth-centric, and even the most sacred calves should be expendable in the pursuit of same.

Let me use an example of the problems I see associated with faith based counselling. I had one client who had been in couple and individual therapy for 5 years, when I had dealings with him. In less than 8 weeks I was able to establish that he had had major sexual boundaries violated by his very religious (and sexually paranoid) mother, but his previous 'faith-based therapist' had never established this, which I regard a serious factor in effecting real change in the marriage. I can only assume that this was missed for so long because of the discomfort around the issue of sexuality that exists in many religious settings, even the many faith-based therapists.

In this client and his partner, boundaries (or the lack thereof) were a major problem, and once again I observe that is very common in heavy Church goers. For instance, I I had a SDA minister who had real problems with "I statements' believing them to be selfish, for goodness sake.

So, in summary, I am not a great fan of faith-based therapy, and I am quite an admirer of Carl Jung.

Daryl

[Jeff_Ricks]

I am not aware that Jung was a Christian, but if that was true, I expect he would have been extremely liberal and progressive. His work would suggest strongly that he would have taken little scripture literally, and more likely looked for the underlying themes and their appeal.lLooks like you're right, Daryl. I found this:

http://www.innerexplorations.com/jctext/what.htm

Jung had an extensive Christian background. His father was a pastor in the Swiss Reform Church, and eight of his maternal uncles were clergymen, as well. Thus, his whole upbringing was steeped in the institutional church, and it was almost inevitable that he would have to struggle with how to relate his psychology to his Christian roots. This struggle only seemed to intensify as he got older, for it was in his later years he wrote some of his powerful works on subjects like the suffering of Job and on the meaning of the Trinity.

But when all was said and done, it is hard to make a case that Jung, however deeply interested in Christianity and sympathetic to Christians he was, could really be called a Christian, himself. It was not as if his psychology was one thing, and his religious outlook quite another. His psychology was his religious outlook, and the limits of his psychology as a way of knowing were his own personal limits.

[noodle]

I don't think Bob would mind me sharing something that he told me when I was talking with him after his presentation. I asked him how he has the time to write so much well though out stuff, and he said it's from an "obsessive compulsiveness" that was triggered in him when he left Mormonism but is now waning. He said writing has been theraputic for him, which I think we all assumed was a factor. He also said that allowing himself to remain in this obsessive compulsive mode for so long has been somewhat a conscious choice for the purpose of forcing new neural patterns to overwrite the ones that were formed from his years in Mormonism. I like to think this forum serves some of the same purpose for us too. :)

Jeff

Jeff, the forum has indeed served a similar purpose, and there are many grateful folks out there in cyberland.

I suspect that the obsessiveness is not uncommon in folks as they are transitioning in their lives, for whatever reason. We have certainly benefited from Bob McCue's compulsion. His writing is superb. Somehow, I missed his essays until recently, and I am such a fan. I've even referred my TBM son to his stuff when we were discussing a relevant topic that Bob has addressed.

I read once that often people who are most productive in business, etc., have manic-like episodes. I wish that I could flip a switch and become a little more manic at times, for the few times I've been that way, I've had major paridigm shifts in my thinking. I think I'm due. :D

mamajama