Greetings from the Desert

My name is Bill Harryman – Durwin kindly invited me to join this pod, for which I am grateful.

I am not a practicing therapist or mental health professional. Currently I am a writer and personal trainer – but I am often “coaching” or providing emotional/psychological support for my clients. Some of my writing work has been in the relam of psychology, including a paper at the CG Jung Page.

Once upon a time, in a land far far away, I was a psych major. I quit halfway through my senior year and became an English major instead. Still, I read widely in psychology and have tried to keep with up with current trends, especially the integral model offered by Wilber and others.

I will be returning to school next year to begin a PhD in clinical psych at the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology.

I look forward to seeing what all of you are doing in integral psychotherapy.

Peace.

Re: Greetings from the Desert

Hi Bill:
I am in conversation (perhaps shadow warfare at times!) with some Jungian folks…but really, I would like to find a way to bridge Integral to Jung's material, particularly at the level of injunctions:  e.g. active imagination…dream analysis…these both seem to work with subtle states of consciousness, so can distinguish injunctions that access subtle states from causal injunctions (e.g. centering prayer) here…does Jung have any causal-state injunctions?  He speaks of Self, which seems to be borrowed from Vedanta…I know he was exposed to Kundalini yoga…

…any light you can share on these points greatly appreciated…and…I tried to access your article, but was not convinced I wanted to pay for membership…would you be willing to share the text of your article with me?  Raven and shadow…sounds interesting…

Take care,

Durwin

Re: Greetings from the Desert

To be honest, I haven't read much Jung in the last 10-15 years. Michael Washburn is a neo-Jungian who attempts a somewhat integral understanding of Jung's work – someone you might want to check out (Wilber and him had a go-round back in the 1980's over the pre/trans fallacy that informs much of Jung and some critical elements of Washburn). Aside from a few misgivings, Washburn is worth looking at.

If you email me (you can get my address on the sidebar at IOC), I'll email you the Raven article, and if I can find it, a chart I created once trying to fit Jung and Wilber into a model that works for both – mostly a developmental model.

Peace,
Bill

Re: Greetings from the Desert

Hello Durwin and Bill,

Just reacting on Duwrin's post about Jung. The Self in Jungian terminology is not the Self of Vedanta, as Atman. The Jungian Self would be closer to the Jivatman, or the Jiva. This is what I got from my readings on the matter.

Love to you,

Patrick

Jung's Self

My understanding of Jung's Self is that it is a composite of a Transpersonal Self, indeed a jivatman, and an Authentic self, something akin to Winnicott's idea of  the raw, vulnerable inner self, an egg-yolk surrounded by a personna or Winnicottian albumen. This would place the latter at the level of the first three fulcrums. Given the composite nature of this Self, it lends confusion as to Jung's notion of Individuation when subjected to an Integral lens because this process would have to proceed in two directions; the prepersonal and the transpersonal. Given that Jung was essentially a straight-arrow Cartesian, he had to collapse prepersonal into transpersonal in order to accommodate a unified individuating process towards his notion of the Self.
 One individuates by negotiating the archetypes through a combination of enactment and transcendence. Herein lies a confusion of prepersonal archetypes (e.g. trickster, animus/anima) and transpersonal ones (e.g. the five Buddha families in the mahayana samboghakaya) so that the Self (from an integral perspective) is both prepersonal and transpersonal….KWs criticism of Jung as an elevationist is thus born out.
Although it doesn't invalidate out Carl, whose erudition when shorn of the pre/trans fallacy, has a helluvalot to teach us.
Washburn makes the same mistake. KW Eye of spirit. Also KW in dialogue.
Hope this proves of use. x