Changes

'''Jungian [[psychology]]''' is a [[theory ]] developed by [[Carl Jung]], and is central to [[Analytical psychology]] (the "Neopsychoanalytic [[school]]"). Jungian psychology is geared largely toward the [[nature ]] of [[symbolism]] and the effects of [[attachment]] upon the ability of [[people ]] to live their lives in [[ignorance ]] of their deeper "[[symbolic]]" natures. His [[ideas ]] center on the [[understanding ]] that a [[symbol]] loses its symbolic [[power ]] when it is "attached" to a static [[meaning]]. The attached and therefore static meaning renders an amorphous symbol (like the sphere or the [[ourobouros]]) to a mere definition; no longer does it have the ability to be [[active ]] in the [[mind ]] as a "transformer of [[consciousness]]," free to associate with new experiences and [[thinking]]. "Symbolic power" transcends and permeates through all [[conscious ]] thinking.

[[Jung ]] is best known for his term "[[archetype]]" which connotes a [[structural ]] view of [[psychological ]] [[life]]. The term archetype can be [[understood ]] as quite similar to - and was probably directly influenced by - [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]]'s term "a priori." Jung often seemed to view the archetypes as sorts of psychological organs, directly analogous to our [[physical]], [[bodily ]] organs: both [[being ]] morphological givens for the [[species]]; both arising at least partially through evolutionary [[processes]]. Current Jungian-influenced thinking has explored nearly diametrically opposing paths from Jung's structural thinking. Some have pursued deeply structural views, along the lines of [[systemics|complexity theory]] in [[mathematics]], and some have tried to [[work ]] with Jung's ideas in a seeming [[post-structuralism|post-structuralist]] way (most obviously, [[James Hillman]]). Jung's work with mythology and archetypes was one of the most significant influences on mythologist [[Joseph Campbell]].

Perhaps the most important archetype to Jung would be what he termed the "[[Self]]." It could be described as the ultimate pattern of psychological life; he characterized it as both the [[totality ]] of the personality, conscious and [[unconscious]], and the [[process ]] of becoming of the [[whole ]] [[personality]]. It could be described as both the [[goal ]] of one's psychological life and that which pulls one toward it teleologically. One important point to note here [[about ]] Jung's thinking is that he did not hold to be absolute the four-dimensional [[space-time continuum]] that we conventionally conceptualize (see [[synchronicity]]).

We can better [[understand ]] Jung's views of the Self by [[looking ]] at two [[other ]] archetypal or structural views that were highly important to him: the [[idea ]] of "the opposites" and his work describing many old, largely despised and forgotten [[alchemy|alchemical]] [[texts]]. Jung saw these texts as valuable psychological treatises rather than dry descriptions of arcane magical practices.

Early in Jung's career he coined the term and described the [[concept ]] of the "[[complex (psychology)|complex]]". Jung claims to have discovered the concept during his [[free association]] and [[galvanic skin response]] experiments. [[Freud ]] obviously took up this concept in his [[Oedipus complex]] amongst [[others]]. Jung seemed to see [[complexes ]] as quite [[autonomous ]] parts of psychological life. It is almost as if Jung were describing [[separate ]] personalities within what is considered a single [[individual]]. But to equate Jung's use of complexes with something along the lines of [[multiple personality disorder]] would be to stretch the point beyond breaking.

Jung saw an archetype as always being the central organizing [[structure ]] of a [[complex]]. For [[instance]], in a "[[negative mother complex]]," the archetype of the "[[negative ]] [[mother]]" would be seen to be central to the [[identity ]] of that complex. This is to say, our psychological lives are patterned on common [[human ]] experiences. Interestingly, Jung saw the [[Ego]] (which Freud wrote about in [[German ]] literally as "the I", one's conscious [[experience ]] of oneself) as a complex. If the "I" is a complex, what might be the archetype that [[structures ]] it? Jung, and many Jungians, might say "the [[hero]]," one who separates from the [[community ]] to ultimately carry the community further.

Jung's writings have been of much interest to people of many backgrounds and interests, including theologians, people from the humanities, and mythologists. Jung often seemed to seek to make contributions to various fields, but he was mostly a practicing [[psychiatrist]], involved during his whole career in treating [[patients]]. A description of Jung's [[clinical ]] relevance is to address the core of his work.

Jung started his career [[working ]] with hospitalized patients with major [[mental illness]]es, most notably [[schizophrenia]]. He was interested in the possibilities of an unknown "brain toxin" that could be the [[cause ]] of schizophrenia. But the majority and the heart of Jung's clinical career was taken up with what we might call today individual [[psychodynamic]] [[psychotherapy]], in gross structure very much in the strain of [[psychoanalytic ]] [[practice ]] first formed by Freud.

It is important to [[state ]] that Jung seemed to often see his work as not a [[complete ]] psychology in itself but as his unique contribution to the field of psychology. Jung claimed late in his career that only for about a [[third ]] of his patients did he use "Jungian [[analysis]]." For [[another ]] third, [[Freudian analysis]] seemed to best suit the [[patient]]'s [[needs ]] and for the final third [[Adlerian|Adlerian analysis]] was most appropriate. In fact, it seems that most contemporary Jungian clinicians merge a developmentally grounded theory, such as [[Self (psychology)|Self]] psychology or [[Donald Winnicott]]'s work, with the Jungian theories in [[order ]] to have a "whole" [[theoretical ]] repertoire to do actual clinical work.

The "I" or [[Ego]] is tremendously important to Jung's clinical work. Jung's theory of etiology of [[psychopathology]] could almost be simplified to be stated as a too rigid conscious attitude towards the whole of the [[psyche]]. That is, a [[psychotic episode]] can be seen from a Jungian perspective as the "rest" of the psyche overwhelming the conscious psyche because the conscious psyche effectively was locking out and [[repressed memory|repressing]] the psyche as a whole.

John Weir Perry's book ''The Farside of [[Madness]]'' explores and fleshes out this idea of Jung's very well. Note: this is a psychological description of a [[psychotic ]] episode.

Jung hypothesized a medical basis for schizophrenia that was beyond the understanding of the medical [[science ]] of his day (and seems to still be beyond [[present ]] medical science in a satisfactory [[sense]]). Twin studies and plenty of clinical [[material ]] seem to point clearly to a medical basis for schizophrenia. It perhaps can best be said that schizophrenia is both medical and psychological. A medical understanding (again, as yet still [[lacking]]) would not [[change ]] the fact that schizophrenia is lived by those who have it psychologically; that is to say, as theorists and scientists, we may be able to say that schizophrenia happens in genes, brains, and the electrochemical, but for one who has schizophrenia it also happens in their mind and experience. This is to say a purely medical [[treatment ]] of major [[mental ]] [[illness ]] is inadequate, as is a purely psychological treatment of major mental illness.