Professor David Peimer
Freud and Jung: Two Giants Too Big for Their World

Professor David Peimer - Freud and Jung: Two Giants Too Big for Their World

- So, hi everybody, and I hope everyone’s well, everyone around wherever. And today, just to dive in, I’m going to focus primarily on Mr. Jung 1875-1961. And I’m going to have a look at just some of the main ideas of Jung. And I feel in a way where his huge influence is almost grown in a sense of a global zeitgeist. The global awareness of the ideas and the important notions that he contributed, certainly in the West, and I think beyond. In addition, I’m going to look at some of the fallout and the relationship between him and Freud, and try and tease out some of the aspects of what really happened. And because it’s more complex than just a sort of couple of arguments, or purely theoretical, or even purely personal, a mixture of both. And try and tease out that relationship, which on the one hand was incredibly rich and then ended up being pretty sad. I’m also going to look at a couple of interesting things that Jung said about Hitler and a few other aspects, and then Jung in relation to popular culture over the latter half of the 20th century, later part of 20th century into our century now. So I don’t want to only look at words, words, words, which I did with Freud to show the absolutely the magnitude of his influence in our daily thought and our daily interaction on a human level, family, community, work level, national level. I want to rather look at what Jung really tried to get at in his difference with Freud and what did he really contribute to, which has lasted and, in fact, grown in enormity over the remaining part of last century into our 21st century. And I truly trying to identify those notions that have become so prominent. So here we have two giants, and I really believe Freud is the big daddy of all.

And as everybody knows, Jung was regarded as the younger, if you like, protege and student who would work with him, help publicise his ideas, et cetera. But then the split happens, and then Jung begins to forge. Well, he continues to really forge his own ideas, which in a way are partly against Freud, but also not entirely, They incorporate, but take some of Freud’s ideas much, much further in his own way. Okay, so that’s the focus for today. And I’m also going to have a look at the question of evil because I do, and Hannah Arendt’s phrase, banality of evil in relation to some of Jung’s ideas of the shadow. Okay, this is an early picture when they were young and getting on with each other famously. On the very bottom left is a smiling Freud. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t seen a smiling Freud in the thousands that exist. And on the bottom right is a young Dr. Jung, who is much more serious. On the top picture there, you see Ernest Jones, who I’m sure everybody knows, became so famous in getting the ideas of Freud out to the West, into English language, and also helping him much later in life in the late ‘30s towards the end of his life and getting out of Nazi occupied Vienna. So with Freud and with Jung. And this is here a picture of young Jung 1910, very early and young. And I like it because we can contrast. The reason I want to do it is because we’re obviously going to look at archetypes.

You know, but this is the young guy, and this is Jung, obviously towards the end of his life, at a much, much later age, and get a very different impression if one thinks in terms of archetype and separates that from the individual psychologist for a moment, get a clear sense of an archetype of the sage, of the wise old man, et cetera, in this image here. And there’s no smile. This is a very different, almost like a dashing young guy, obviously, you know, on the make, on the up in terms of ambition and drive and intellectual endeavour. Okay, so going back to the picture of all of them here, and you can imagine the excitement, the passion and the hunger 'cause they’re forging new ideas, an entirely new field of human discovery and human questioning. One can imagine, I feel it comes out of this picture more than most others. And they know they’re onto something big and huge and are determined, and yet there’s a real youthful, almost exuberance and passion for me. So much later, Jung becomes the father figure, as we all know of many of the phrases of collective conscious, archetype and so on. Jung is interested in the religious, the spiritual. He’s really interested much more in what happens after the age of 40, not really so much before. What happens in that second stage of life, as it were. And one of the big areas of difference with him, with Freud was, and I’m going to incorporate this all the way through today, is that the difference with him and Freud, was that we are not only, you know, the result of libidinal or sexual and other issues in the younger periods of our lives, but we are more concerned with the meaning of life. What is our meaning? What is our purpose? And these other questions.

And that these can help heal not only neurosis, but they can help also, you know, an individual to realise their full potential in life. So that’s one of the major differences with Freud. But the biggest idea, I guess everybody knows that. The biggest idea I think that he contributes and where the shift really happens with Freud is he brings in the awareness of historical, of cultural, of religious, of spiritual difference, and the ancient ideas, symbols, images, the ancient myths and stories of a culture and puts them centre stage on the stage, not only of psychoanalysis, but of human nature. And I think this is his enormous rift with Freud. Freud is for me, much more concerned about the individual and helping to heal neurosis and understanding individual psyche. Late in his life, the civilization and discontents and some of the other works he starts to point towards it without doubt. And as Melanie Client picks up later, you know, the relational aspect of the individual to society, individual to other individuals in her object relations theory. But that’s later. I think that Jung starts out and he started out young with his PhD thesis. He starts out young with an awareness of history, culture, mythology, symbols, religion or spirituality of whatever kind, the ancient myths and stories of a culture. And that this is so deep in individuals who are part of that culture. I’m not going to get into the debate whether it’s actually literally genetic or not, but it becomes part of a bigger picture of memory that an individual is born into, whether they like it or not.

We are born into being Jewish, whether one likes it or not, born into being, you know, speaking Mandarin, whether one likes it or not, born, et cetera, et cetera. And this is what, you know, Heidegger had this phrase, the sort of thrownness, you know, how you are thrown into life, and I don’t want to get into Heidegger, but with Jung, you know, once one enters this one cannot for a second ignore it, which is part of what the enlightenment thinkers try to put aside. They try to put in the back pocket if you like, you know, culture and religion obviously, and many other things and put reason at the top of the table. And with Jung, it’s the opposite. Using rationality to understand not only dreams and symbols because they are the embodiment of the myth and the ancient stories. It’s the ancient stories of a culture that he puts, I think, at the centre. And we all know the phrases collective unconscious and archetype, you know, and so on, which I’ll go into a little bit more. So I think that’s the huge difference with him and Freud. And it becomes for Freud, an irreconcilable difference between the unconscious scene in a personal way and the unconscious scene in a collective, if you like, mythical story told ancient way of a culture or a community, whether it’s a nation, whether it’s a religion, whatever the group is. And that is a huge difference between the two. Jung coming more from a philosophical tradition and an anthropological one as well. Freud not. And Jung talks about that he studied Kant and he studied, you know, others. Kant one of the great enlightenment thinkers. So he’s utterly influenced by the enlightenment ideas, okay?

So I want you to talk about that, the historical and the cultural and the other, one of the main ideas for me that Freud contributes is the idea of the shadow. And I feel it’s so strongly in our times today. And I’m going to go into that a bit with talking about Hannah Arendt and if I can be indulged, a brilliant, just in essence of a brilliant speech given by Albert Camus in 1946 at my alma mater at Columbia University, New York City. And just to some of the incredible images and ideas that Camus speaks about in 1946, which I think linked to Jung’s notion of the shadow and how it can have echoes for us today. So what is the shadow? In a pretty literal sense, it’s both sides of the character. He sees the duality, he sees that every person, every culture has a split, has a duality. One person is tidy, they may choose that they’re attracted to a person who’s untidy, and the opposites attract. Of course, later, get highly irritated and developed contempt. But that we’re attracted to the opposite, even if we don’t like it, and what do we do with a shadow in ourself, the parts of ourselves of in our unconscious, it’s not conscious, it’s unconscious that we don’t like necessarily. You know, we all like to think we are a, you know, certain kind and this and that and so on. But there are parts that, and do we have control over it or not? What do we do? How do we bring it to consciousness. And dreams come in, in Freud’s phrase. Dream is the royal road to the unconscious. So dreams are the road to try and become aware of what the unconscious contains, collectively and individually for Jung, in order to help try and heal and individuate and become to realise our full potential as adults.

And each culture has it. Every culture has, and these are obviously all in metaphor, the stories are in metaphor, the myths, the legends and so on. But they get passed down generation after generation and become so absolutely powerful and centre stage in the individual human psyche. As he said, we are not only, I am not, we are not only for today or for yesterday. We are of an immense age. We go way back with our culture and our community and absorb it. Something is coming through. So Freud for me, saw the individual and Jung the collective. You know, one can see, and often spoken about this in terms of Jewish history, if we look at it from a Jungian perspective, in the collective unconscious, you can see the persecuted victim and the fighter and the scholar. Those are the archetypes, you know, swimming around in the unconscious, in the collective unconscious perhaps of the Jewish people or of individuals. And obviously each culture has their own. It’s interesting for me, when you look at how cultures see death, and I’ve often wondered, you know, looking at the pyramids, you know, how in those ancient days, why were they obsessed with pyramids?

What were they trying to do? In a way, life for me is seen as a preparation for death. Very different to the Jewish approach. And I’m reminded of this old joke where, you know, you get the Iman and he says, well, he’s asked, “Well, what do you want people to say at your funeral?” “Well, I contributed to Islamic culture, to my community, et cetera.” Then they asked the priest, “What do you want people to say at your funeral?” “Well, that I rarely, you know. I showed charity and compassion. I love my neighbour. And I gave that knowledge to my community.” And then they said to the rabbi, “What do you want people to say at your funeral?” And the rabbi stands up and he says, “I want them to open the coffin and the people to look and say, 'Look, he’s moving.’” Okay. Anyways, it’s the celebration of life, you know, L'chaim, we say, to life. So in huge contrast to me, the pyramids are, again, it’s all symbolic and metaphorical. I don’t mean it literally, it’s about life as a preparation for death. For me, that’s an understanding of the pyramids. And I think that’s what’s fascinating is in looking at our cultures, understand things like death or birth or marriage, whatever, one can start to see what Jung means in a concrete way of looking at life and a way of living life and these ancient stories and myths and what they become. And obviously every culture he argued would have, a version of its healer. We call it medicine man or shaman or healer or witch doctor or doctor, whatever. You know, these are all archetypes of the healer for him. And it’s in all cultures.

So there is a universalization in Jung in the archetypes, obviously. He went to the East, he went to India. There, I think, he really discovered the meaning of symbols and how to understand symbols as they would express or be metaphors for aspects of archetype and a kind of, which archetypes are important to that culture. He went to Africa and there he spoke about the kinship and archetype and how community was so absolutely central for him, for Jung. He went to Kenya and Uganda and what he took away from it was community kinship and how central it was. So that would be a highly valued metaphor in the collective unconscious of certain people living in those areas, in those groups. Also, of course, what else did he do? He introduced psychedelic drugs, which is obviously, as we all know, taken up by Timothy Leary, many others in the ‘60s. But Jung was the first. why? Because through psychedelia you could try and get and open the door to the unconscious, to the dream and thereby understand oneself better, one’s own culture and bring together the unconscious and the conscious. Not just as a sort of fun trip, but a profound attempt to understand a deeper sense of one’s own human nature and the human nature of one’s community through psychedelia, you know? Okay, then also, of course, some of the archetypes of the trickster, the hero, and many others. The shadow I’ve mentioned, there’s a book by Joseph Campbell, “The Hero’s Journey,” or “The Hero with a 1,000 Faces.” And he was a contemp, he was Jungian who wrote about so many of the stories of heroes and variations using Jungian archetypes.

That book has become an almost bible for almost all Hollywood screenwriters. And you get the classic Hollywood film structure of the hero’s journey. The obstacles the hero faces what he has to overcome, he or she has to overcome in their lives, the community. And that may be an external obstacle or maybe an internal obstacle, doesn’t matter. There’s a shadow lying in wait, which has to be overcome. And the old childhood story, you know, the little child is scared of the monster there. Well, of course, the child, the monster’s inside, not only outside as well, Jung becoming fully aware. And this is what I think he brings, puts in at the centre of western culture, the shadow, the archetype, the collective unconscious, our history, our culture, religion. And it’s not a question of believing in a or b, but the need for religion and spirituality. He’s very influenced. He’s honest and he says he got the idea of archetypes from studying Kant 'cause he studied philosophy more than Freud. You know, Freud came from a different trajectory. We all know studying with Charcot in Paris. And from Plato, it actually originates in Plato, this idea of the archetypes in a sense, not only a philosopher king, but many others. It’s so what what does the ego do? And what I was saying last week was the ego tries to do a deal between the unconscious impulses of the id, you know, which are the instinct and impulse, which are not controlled. And the super ego, which is the conscience or the police. And ego has to try and do a deal to balance out the two so we can be healed from our neurosis and live in life.

And I think for Jung the ego through what he called individuation, but the ego has to try and do a deal through the id. But the id is not only full of individual instincts and individual drives and desires, but the unconscious, the id is full of the collective myths and stories and ancient legends of our culture, of our community or our subculture, if you like, in a Western context. And has to do a deal between the two aspects of the unconscious and the superego, the police or the moral or the conscience of the mind. So to do deals there. And in order to do that, you have to be over 40, you know, in the Jungian approach, looking for the meaning of life, trying to understand and try and bring out the unconscious to understand it more and more. And only then could we effectively become adults who are effective and can have impact and have satisfaction for ourselves and most importantly, realise our individual full potential. Okay, this is for me in a way the main set of ideas that Jung really brings. Then of course some of the other archetypes. The persona, and that’s an interesting archetype. It’s the image we present to the world. Now that’s fascinating to me, and we all know we’ve got to present certain images, you know, one’s a professional architect, professional doctor, professional politician, professional artist, writer, whatever. And there’s a certain image we present.

And then of course there’s a distinction with the inner self. So it’s a mask, which he spoke about. Then there’s the wise old man, and I’m trying to show it right now. Then one of the ones I love as well, of course, and we all know it so well, the trickster. And you know, we think of King Lear and the fool. He’s the trickster, the jester, the joker, the fool. But actually in that duality idea that everything has a shadow, everything has its opposite. The fool is the wit and the humour and the jest, but the fool is also the wise. So every archetype for Jung, therefore every person contains the duality, contains the opposite, contains their shadow, which may be negative or it may just be an opposite. And that for me is fascinating. And then others we have the ruler, the artist or the creator, the explorer, the rebel, the hero I’ve mentioned, the fighter or the warrior, the scholar, et cetera. So, you know, and how we, these are not just masks to put on, but we need to absorb them into our lives in our mature adult life and live them. And for Jung, this is part of individuation, this is part of realisation of our full potential as a human in life. We can already see the huge distinction between that and Freud. Okay, I want to show, this is from an a fascinatingly brilliant interview in the late '50s, a BBC interview that Jung did. And I want to show two parts briefly here, where you’ll see as he talks to the interviewer about him and Freud and some of his main ideas.

CLIP BEGINS

• Hysteria. But that was literally, you know, and then in 1907 I became acquainted with him personally.

• [Interviewer] Would you tell me how that happened? Did you go to Vienna too.

• Oh, well, I’d written a book about the psychology of dementia, called schizophrenia then. And I sent him that book and thus became acquainted. I went to Vienna for a fortnight and then we had in very long and penetrating conversations and that settled it.

• [Interviewer] And this long and penetrating conversation was followed by personal friendship.

• Oh yes. It soon developed into a personal friendship.

• [Interviewer] And what sort of man was Freud?

• Well, he was a complicated nature, you know. I liked him very much, but I soon discovered that when he had thought something, then it was settled while I was doubting all along the line. And it was impossible to discuss something really a full. You know, he had no philosophical education, particularly, you see, I was studying Kant and I was steeped in it. And that was far from Freud. So from the very beginning there was a discrepancy.

• [Interviewer] Did you in fact grow apart later, partly because of a difference in temperamental approach to experiment and proof and so on?

• Well, of course, there is always a temperamental difference. And his approach was naturally different from mine because his personality was different from mine. That led me in into my later investigation of psychological types with the definite attitudes. Some people are doing it in this way and other people are doing it in the other typical way. And there were such differences between myself and Freud too.

• [Interviewer] Do you consider that Freud’s standard of proof and experimentation was less higher than your own?

• Well, I see that is an evaluation I’m not competent of. I am not my own history or my history . In with reference to certain results I think my method has its merits.

• [Interviewer] Tell me, did Freud himself ever analyse you?

• Oh yes, I had submitted quite a lot of my dreams to him. And so did he.

• [Interviewer] And he to you?

• Oh yes, yes.

• [Interviewer] Do you remember now at this distance of time, what were the significant features of Freud’s dreams that you noted at the time?

• Well, it’s rather indiscreet to ask, you know, there is such a thing as a professional secret.

• [Interviewer] He’s been dead these many years.

• I, yeah, yes, but these regards last longer than life. I prefer not to talk about it.

• [Interviewer] Well, may I ask you something else then, which perhaps is also indiscreet. Is it true that you have a very large number of letters which you exchanged with Freud, which are still unpublished?

• Yes.

• [Interviewer] When are they going to be published?

• Well, not during my lifetime.

• [Interviewer] You would have no objection to them being published after your lifetime.

• Oh no, not at all.

• [Interviewer] Because they are probably of great historical importance.

• I don’t think so.

• [Interviewer] Then why have you not published them so far?

• Because they were not important to me enough. I see no particular importance in them.

• [Interviewer] They’re concerned with personal matters.

• Well, partially, but I wouldn’t care to publish them.

• [Interviewer] Well, now can we move on to the time when you did eventually part company with Freud? It was partly, I think, with the publication of your book, “The Psychology of the Unconscious.” Is that correct?

• That is, that is what was the real cause.

• [Interviewer] well, now, before you.

• Oh, I mean the final cause because it had a long preparation. You know, from the beginning I had a reservoir mentalis. I couldn’t agree with quite a number of his ideas.

• [Interviewer] Which ones in particular?

• Well, chiefly his purely personal approach and his disregard of historical conditions of man. You see, we depend largely upon our history. We are shaped through education, through the influence of the parents, which are by no means always personal. They were prejudiced or they were influenced by historical ideas or what I call dominance. And that is most decisive factor in psychology. We are not of today or of yesterday, we are of an immense age.

• [Interviewer] Was it not partly your.

CLIP ENDS

• So it’s told today, as he says, one of the big differences between him and Freud was Freud focused on the individual and his focus on history and the collective. And as I’ve been saying earlier, the collective stories, myths and ideas coming down through the unconscious into every person, whether through family, education, school, whatever. The other idea that for me speaks about is, and I think he had mentioned this, that Freud, you know, had wanted him to be his protege, et cetera. But this distinction as they start to separate out becomes an almost irreconcilable, if you like, intellectual difference. What I find fascinating on a personal level is that these guys, I mean, can we imagine in our 30s or 40s sitting down, you know, for many, many hours, days, nights, talking, sharing dreams with each other, just telling each other and analysing each other’s dreams and how radical this must have been in his time or even in our time. I mean, how often do people have even the time or the energy or the interest to share their dreams and take them seriously. That the dreams are going to tell us so much about ourselves, the human nature, the nature of our community or the group we belong to. I mean, you know, but so seriously has to spend so much time and energy analysing it all. You know, it’s not just in a 50 minute therapy session, but. You know, so I mean the revolutionary idea of it, it’s just one of the many, many ideas, which to me is so radical. And the meaning of the word radical comes from the Latin word raiders, which is to go to the root, not just to be revolutionary, but to go to the root, you know, to go to the root of something saying, well, I believe this is so profound in understanding human nature and society, which is a worthwhile endeavour.

So, you know, and they’re doing it night after night. They went on a trip to America together and they gave a whole lot of talks and they would spend many hours analysing each other’s dreams. I mean, can we imagine doing that these days or anybody doing it? It shows to me the single minded, the obsession, the hunger for knowledge, for insight, for learning to understand human nature themselves and their times. Jung also gave great contribution, or his ideas finally through the spirituality and the religious aspect led to the founding of Alcoholics Anonymous and the 12 step programme that we all know. Taking Freud’s idea of addiction much further in a very concrete way. We also spoke about the idea of his archetypes of the introvert and the extroverts. And you know, the introvert who believes that they, the world is sufficient within themselves. The extrovert needs an audience in order to feel realised in the world. You know, these are such common parlance today, but all starts with this guy. We can see it, you know, if we look at some of the obvious ones in popular culture in the film, “Casablanca,” you know, we have the three guys. We have the Bogart character who’s the cynic and the romantic. For me, cynicism being the last refuge of the romantic. We have the idealist who’s going to die for his cause. And we have Captain Renault, who’s the ironic pragmatist or opportunist. We have the three archetypes set up in one film. We have so many in Star Wars. I don’t want to go into the details, but it’s all there. And in fact, George Lucas, you know, writes about the influence of the archetypes and Campbell’s work.

We can go way back to Samson and Delilah, David and Goliath, et cetera, et cetera. It’s all there. But what’s interesting is that these are the opposites within an individual, a duality. They are the shadow and the person as well. And that’s what I find one of the most powerful things. What also came out of Jung was art therapy. Dance therapy, all these things we take for granted today. Don’t even question, but he saw the pot- He was the first to see the potential of all these collective approaches to helping heal individuals with real suffering, mental or physical or particular mental suffering in a profound way, which we don’t question, but it began with Jung fascinatingly for me, as a way of healing through a cultural, a communal approach. And thereby it’s obviously different with Freud. And of course the extreme opposite, you know, of the Nazi era and the fanaticism and nationalism expressed the religious devotion to bands and flags and images and costume, which many people have written about. That’s fairly obvious. What is important, and one must say it, is that he didn’t break off relationships with German psychotherapists until 1939, and that’s when he resigned from all German groups. There’s enormous, there’s been debate, you know, was he sympathetic or wasn’t he, to the Nazis, et cetera. But I think that’s a whole separate area of discussion because one has to be nuanced to pay justice to Jung. I don’t think it can be said in a couple of sentences. I don’t believe personally having really tried to research it, that he was sympathetic to the Nazis in any way. And in fact, Alan Dulles, he actually gave a lot of, he sent a lot of reports to what became the CIA in America, the OSS, and Alan Dulles wrote afterwards that his contribution was enormous to understanding the mind of the Nazi leaders.

So he had been, and he was called, he was agent 448 in what became of the CIA’s records. So there’s another whole side to Jung in terms of the war also. Fellini uses his dreams and symbols to make his movies. I spoke about the '60s and many of the others. So what I want to mention, and you know, I even think as a South African, and I have to be honest here, because I was brought up as a South African to feel a kind of unconscious superiority, white, whether I liked it or not. And it was in the culture. I really believe it, however much one could resist it and emotionally rage against it and fight it at the same time, the guilt. So there is the shadow, there is the duality of superior and guilt. When one thinks of, I’ve heard so many people say with Harvey Weinstein and the Epstein, you know, oh God, they were Jews. And I think why? Why are they saying that? And start to understand it in a Jungian way to the shadow and the individual. Everything has its opposite. If you look at Riza Divet’s plays are brilliant and understanding the white of Ricano psychology in terms of archetypes. The sense of superiority and inferiority, inferiority coming out of the Boer War, the concentration camps and the British, et cetera. And then the racial superiority, you know, and her plays go to the heart of it in the characters and the structure in understanding that white of Ricano psychology, I believe. And I think that Jung meant that we get stuck if we stay within the extremes of the shadow and the self of the archetype that we are constructed within. And the idea of individuation is to try and get the ego to, as I said, to a deal between those unconscious, whether it’s superiority and guilt or whatever it is. So we can start to forge as adults.

And here I just want to. I mean, I just want to mention this idea with Hannah Arendt. Obviously her phrase banality of evil. And it struck me that perhaps a better understanding might be the duality of evil. And this greats to the lecture that Camus gave at Columbia called the Human Crisis in 1946. And he starts out this lecture, again, I’m linking it to the shadows and the person, with four little stories. There’s an apartment building occupied by the Gestapo. Two men are tied up and they have been tortured and they’re bleeding, and the Gestapo have left. The next morning, the cleaning lady comes in good spirits after a nice breakfast and they say, “Look, can’t you help us? Can’t, et cetera.” And the cleaning lady gets on with her job and says, “I never interfere with my customer’s business.” Second story from Camus. A man is being tortured by the Gestapo. These were stories that actually happened, Camus researched, A man is being tortured by the Gestapo and his ears are badly torn. The German officer who has been interrogating him, comes in the next day and says, “How are your ears?” in a tone of genuine affection and concern and plays music. Third story, in Greece, a Nazi officer is about to execute three men of the resistance. There are brothers. The mother throws herself at his feet, begs, pleads, “They are my sons, don’t kill them.” The German says, “Choose one.” She chooses the oldest because he has children and a family. Her choice means that her other two sons will die. They do. The German officer thinks he’s showing compassion in a perverse way. There’s a group of deported women who have suffered enormously in the camps, in the slave camps. They get back to France via Switzerland. And in Switzerland they see a what we would regard as a normal funeral ceremony today. They laugh with wild abandon. And the one says, “That’s really how the dead are treated here?” In these stories, Camus says that we can see that every person contains the seeds of its opposite. In today’s world, what you call the human crisis, we can see death or torture within indifference.

The cleaning lady puts her job first, has to carry on with her job. The German officer has to carry on with his job. He’s going to kill, he’s going to kill the two and not the one, He thinks he’s showing compassion in his own twisted mind. If we go through the stories, you can see what we would regard as nightmarish, horrific, utterly evil acts. But if we look at it through a Jungian perspective, it becomes fascinating to me because we see the shadow of evil and the shadow of the other. Hannah Arendt sees the bureaucracy of Eichmann. She sees what she called the bureaucrat, and she meant by that because he couldn’t think in any other way. He had only one way of thinking. Highly controversial of Arendt. In a Jungian interpretation of evil, to me, it’s not so much only banality, it’s duality that Eichmann can see himself as a daddy, as a father, as all these other things, et cetera carrying out his job, not only following orders and all that garbage, but that he, you know, he’s doing what he has to do. And at the same time, he cannot see what he’s doing is evil. The German officer killing the two sons and not the one doesn’t see himself as evil. There’s a duality where the shadow is ignored. The shadow is denied. And to me, hell, for me, hell is denial, denial of truth, denial of the shadow in oneself, denial of other people, whatever. But hell is a state of denial. And that’s what I think Camus is really getting at, saying that everyone has their shadow and the approach to human suffering, the approach to seeing these things in ourselves and in others can help us at least perhaps understand evil a little bit more. He talks about, and Camus, putting a person to death, watching human suffering as we do night after night on TV becomes a boring obligation.

Since the death of Hitler perhaps it’s too easy to say in Camut’s phrase, the beast is dead, the venom is gone. The venom is not gone. Each of us carries the venom in the shadow of our hearts. This is Camus in 1946. So I think what is fascinating, you know, is that he sees that civilization has become formed, Camus, when the shadow is denied, when we don’t recognise the archetypes inhabiting the shadow in ourselves, civilization becomes form. We carry out a set of formalities, we carry out, we can tear the ears off a person as we torture them and the next day show affectionate care and see nothing wrong with that. That is the terrifying reality of the human crisis, of Camut’s time and our time. And I believe a Jungian interpretation understands and helps us understand human nature a bit more. Can see nothing wrong with tearing out the ear, the one day, of tearing the ears apart and next day showing what I believe is genuine affection of care. That is a terrifying, not only indifference, but a terrifying understanding of what human nature has become. And I think Jung gives us perhaps a little bit of insight into that. I want to just play a little bit more of this here from this amazing interview by the BBC of Jung and from about here.

CLIP BEGINS

• And, therefore, it was rather clear what the dreams meant. Nowadays, no more so. We are so full of apprehensions, fears. That one doesn’t know exactly to what it points. One thing is sure, a great change of our psychological attitude is imminent. That is certain.

• [Interviewer] Why?

• Because we need more, we need more psychology, we need more understanding of human nature because the only real danger that exists is man himself. He is the great danger. And we are pitifully unaware of it. We know nothing of man, far too little. His society should be studied because we are the origin of all coming.

CLIP ENDS

• For me, the fascination here. We are pitifully unaware of human nature. An amazing thing to say, you know, in the middle of the 20th century, but actually not so amazing when you think obviously of the Holocaust, of the First and Second World Wars and all the other tragedies and so on. And I find it, you know, these are glimmers of insights from Freud obviously and from Jung. And it’s not as if Jung feels he’s got to fight Freud, he’s arguing. He doesn’t come across angry in the slightest in any way with Freud. There’s a level of maturity way beyond just, you know, petty sort of schoolboy fighting, you know? And I don’t think it is that. You get a sense of a guy’s, you know, he thought about it in a mature way, try to, and trying to understand that some of the bigger questions, because only through that, can we get some glimpse. To be pitifully unaware of human nature in the mid 20th century is what he’s really saying. That is what history has taught us. So the study of history, the study of psychology. For me, of course, literature, theatre, art and so on, music also crucial. I don’t know if Jung would go along with that. All of these things are the calling of our times. And Jung feels it so strongly after the Second World War and, you know, horrific experiences before. So, I think that it’s amazing these insights and how they speak to us today from him. What he also said about, it’s interesting what he said about Hitler in this understanding of evil and this idea of being able to do things without thinking there’s anything wrong. You know, I can tear off the ears of a guy I’m torturing one day and the next day ask, you know, as if I care, but I think I’m doing good. I think I’m doing right, it’s okay. I come to clean even though you’ve been tortured, et cetera.

You know, that is such an insight into human nature, I think of the shadow and the self. So on Hitler, he says that this is what he wrote. Hitler’s voice is his own unconscious into which the German people have projected themselves. That is to say the unconscious of 78 million Germans that projected their shadow into him. He has no awareness of his shadow. In comparison to Mussolini, Hitler makes the impression of an automotive with a mask. He doesn’t laugh, he shows no human sign. His expression is of an inhuman, single-minded purposeness. He seems as if he might be the double of a real person. He is his shadow, but he is the double of a real person. And a hint of the man might be perhaps hiding somewhere inside. We don’t see it. With Hitler you do not feel that you are with a man. You feel you’re scared. Why? Because you feel that you never be able to talk to this guy, this man, because there’s nobody there. He’s not a man, but a collective. That is the terrifying nature of his power. And how can you talk intimately with a terrifying nature of a nation, not a man. So whenever something is put first and the denial of the shadow, denial of the opposite becomes a scary proposition. And I think this is how he sees Hitler, you know. And this is all coming from the collective unconscious, which is having no filter through to the conscious and awareness at least of the duality of being a human being in a profound sense of ourselves today.

And he goes on to talk about later, you know, that something in us wishes to remain the child, which links to what I was saying earlier, you know, to this really goes after the Freudian way in a sense for him, when one’s a bit older in life, to not remain stuck in the child position, but to realise the archetype one is, or the combination of archetypes, to realise not so much the oral, the anal and other phases of Freud, but the archetypes and not denial the shadow. And to start to not just in, in his phrase, individuate, but start to realise our full potential and, you know, get out of being a child, not just grow up, obviously, but partly that. So I think that he also brought the awareness of old age into modern Western culture. We know that from many other cultures. And indeed Western culture going, going way, way back. But, you know, and what have people done with old age today? That’s a whole separate story. He brings in the idea of synchronicity of the introvert, the extrovert I spoke about. And then he’s asked, you know, also in another interview, not this BBC one. Well, what about your own archetypes? And he says, “Well, I see two in myself, similar to my mother. Number one was a typical school boy, and number two was the dignified, authoritative wise man from ancient times.” So he’s understanding and portraying it in his own life. And he’s trying to say that Hitler represents the example, which cannot, there’s no interest in bridging the two between the unconscious and the shadow inside the unconscious. He was fascinated with Indigenous cultures, as I mentioned. He went to Kenya and Uganda. He looked at Australia, he collected stories from Australia, he went to India, et cetera. You know, he tried to, I think, engage with cultures of the world and bring that back in. I don’t want to go back more into his split with Freud, except to say that in 1913 when they were splitting, he talks about that he had a terrible confrontation with his own unconscious. He started to self-analyze his dreams obsessively.

The visions, the voices became worried that he was in his own words, doing a schizophrenia. But he said he realised the necessity to turn that into a valuable experience, into recording everything to an active imagination. And I think he gives us, for me, the impression of a guy who realises suffering humanity, trying to understand the society he’s living in. His own psyche, He’s not scared to go radically reckless into the depth of his own psyche, to understand himself and his own shadow and his archetypes. And with always the idea of trying to, as Freud was trying to help people with neurosis and help people heal with problems. You know, as Beckett said, after the Second World War, driving around Paris, this fantastic short little piece he wrote, Samuel Beckett, humanity is on its knees. I see humanity on its knees everywhere. And I think that Jung sees it with a real empathy of the sage, of the wise old man archetypes and the shadow and the archetypes through that. And I think Freud also did in his own way. I’m not saying he was great empathetic, or had a great sense of humour or whatever, it doesn’t matter. But I think there’s a genuine desire to understand it, because if we don’t understand empathy, we can’t understand evil. If we don’t understand compassion, we, et cetera, et cetera. The story goes on. We are pitifully unaware of human nature, extraordinary thing to say at a much later age in life. And then art therapy, I spoke about dance therapy, many of the other things. One of the interesting idea finally in contemporary times where Jung’s influence in recent times of management theory and business. It’s from Jung talking about the management persona. What is it? Managers are trained, not only to have a corporate mask, but to frame the sort of people, the employees are to manage them.

You manage the psyche. Personality tests, performance reviews, peer reviews, all these acts in a way of surveillance. But it’s a way of framing the psyche of the employee, of the worker. And so the management persona has to be framed as well in the corporate mask persona as well as the worker. So what sort of people are being created? Go back to Camus, the cleaner, the ears officer, the shooting of the brothers and so on. What sort of people does a society try to frame and how to bring this together into something of a better understanding? Finally, I just want to show a couple of images in contemporary. This is the red book that is famous on Jung’s desk. He puts new ideas and dreams and all the rest of it in and won’t get into the story of that, but it’s become known as a cultural icon, really. The red book. “We are not of today or of yesterday. We are of an immense age. Humans are pitifully unaware of human nature.” I mean, there’s wit inside that for me. But also it’s powerful understanding. In pop culture of today. Sergeant Pepper, the cover, there’s an image of Freud you can find. There’s Bob Dylan, There’s Lennon, there is so many images. There’s Marilyn Monroe. It’s fascinating when you look at the faces that these young guys, the Beatles, put inside one of the greatest iconic albums of all time. Extraordinary. The archetype in “To Kill a Mockingbird,” Atticus Finch, the father, the idealist hero. Look at his face. It’s absolutely there, you can see it. It’s one of the great archetypes. And we can see so many films, stories, theatre, literature, Bible, full of archetypes. I believe in all these ways. I’ve mentioned “Casablanca” and Bogart’s character and the other three.

This is from an old Icelandic picture from Icelandic mythology of the trickster. Not so different from the trickster in many other cultures in Europe and elsewhere. The influence is obvious, but in Jung’s idea, it would be universal. And to bring finally, you know, last week and this week together, you know, these two guys, and of course, you know, one can talk about these two guys for years and years. Forever. One can read endless books. We all know that. To try and crystallise a few of the main ideas, which I think speak to us today, which is the real point of studying anything, I think, to try and help us get a slightly less pitiful understanding of human nature. A little bit more, little bit more profound. And it’s really not only worth it, it’s absolutely essential. And I think underneath the conflict between these two giants, underneath their petty arguments, their differences, and not only petty, but their real intellectual arguments and differences. But of course they could have accepted in each other. But underneath it today, we can take an incredible contribution, an incredible gift to understanding something much more, or the beginnings. In Leonard Cohen’s great phrase. “There’s a crack where the light gets in.” And I think what they offered is to push that crack open more, where more light can get in, to understand this endless rich, tortured, brilliant, magical, mysterious, amazing thing called human nature. And on that, I hope you forgive me, a little bit of poetics at the end. Thank you very much, everybody.

• Thanks David. That was really, really great. So I want to ask you, do you think that, well, I’m a great believer in of course, the collective unconscious. I want as above, you know, we have as above so below. We just have a look at the universe. Our greatest strengths are our greatest weaknesses. You know, there’s always the flip side. Our greatest gifts, when we use them correctly are our greatest strengths, when we don’t, they become our greatest weaknesses. So do you think that this pertaining to what Jung is talking about in terms of that third dimension. Do you think it’s spirituality and what do you think about tarot. And should we have a lecture about tarot.

• Of terror?

• Tarot, T-A-R-O-T.

• Oh, tarot.

• Because that’s dealing with the archetype.

• Yes, very much so.

• And I believe that it does come from Judaism, I believe.

• Yeah, I think. Yeah, sorry Wendy, I mean I agree with you. I think the tarot is, you know, often dismissed and so on. I don’t know if it gives us a kind of formula or a script for life, but I think that it’s trying to understand what’s going on through archetypes absolutely. I think those are symbols and images which are trying to say to people, not necessarily that you are this or that, but here’s a range. Now what do I think connects and how can I help heal some of my own inner problems or neurosis or suffering through thinking actually I can follow this archetype or that, or the combination. And I think that’s in a way the, I think, maybe a Jungian response, You know, so presented with the tarot.

• Is the Jungian response the umbilical chord to culture?

• Yeah, I think so. That’s a lovely way of putting it. I think so, Wendy. Yes, because it’s the myths and the stories and the history and the literature that comes down through the ages of a person’s culture. And he says that is what we are born, we are thrown into in Heidegger phrase, We’re thrown into that. And we are born with whether we like it or not. So accept it, take it on. It’s the umbilical cord. Yes, it’s a lovely phrase. Beautiful, and you’re bringing the mother archetype there. Okay, I’m not going to get obsessed more with archetypes now.

• It’s virtual reality. All right, let’s take this off. I want to explore it a little further. So back to you for questions. Thank you.

• Okay, thank you Wendy.

• [Wendy] Thanks.

Q&A and Comments:

• Okay, Anne. Hi. I was a probation officer and I was teased that I was Freud because of my style of work because I lived in London, NWC because I’m Jewish. Thanks Anne.

Gail, thank you. Hope you’re well in Joburg. Okay, thank you. Lots of people sending their best to you, Wendy. And how you are. A hint from me, David, don’t wear black, fondly Devora.

Okay, I’ll wear Hawaiian, thank you. Barbara. Hi. Do you know who the older gentleman in the middle was? It’s okay.

And Jones. I’ll check that who the older person was in that picture.

Herbert, which is the one in the middle. I’ll check that. I just looked at Jones and Jung and Freud, but I’ve got their names but I can’t remember them now.

Q: Lorraine, there was a final split between Freud and Jung in terms of ideas. How do we account for primitive figurines in Freud’s study?

A: Well, I don’t think Freud was unaware of these ancient, you know, sculptures or images and so on. And I think, as I said later in his life, and obviously “Totem and Taboo” and “Civilization and Its Discontents,” I mean there’s a lot of culture and history and the story’s going way back and Freud used it. I mean, he said he called Jung the Joshua to him being Moses. I don’t think there’s a discounting or an unawareness of it, but I think Freud, the primary focus was the personal and the personal unconscious. Jung, the collective.

Q: What is the name of the book that Hollywood writers would use?

A: “The Hero with a 1,000 Faces.” Joseph Campbell.

Monty. Hi, thank you. Let’s see here. Sorry, this just jumped a bit. Oh, a lot.

Oh there, Janice has written “The Hero with 1,000 Faces.” Yeah. Monty, a Jew comes home to his mother after seeing his psychiatrist. “How did it go?” she says, “He told me that I have an Oedipus complex.” To which she replies, “Oedipus Smedipus, who cares? As long as you love your mother.” Okay, that’s a great joke, Monty. Thank you.

Q: Wilma? Yes. “Hero with 1,000 Faces” by Joseph Campbell, Della, how do Jung’s ideas with community stand up in face of effect that so many people have no religion and no community today?

A: I think he would say that that is part of perhaps the tragedy or the sadness, but it’s difficult because without a, with a scepticism about God and religion without believing in God or religion, it’s tricky 'cause what do you replace it with? The nation state, fanaticism, nationalism? What can be replaced to pull a community together so that it has a central unifying idea it can buy into. That’s the tricky challenge, I think. And his ideas on collective traditions have an importance today. Yeah, I think that is part of the challenge because we do have an enlightenment, scepticism driven by reason of God, religion, of any kind of, any culture. So what is replaced? We’ve seen what happens when you replace it with nationalism fanaticism and other qualities. The cult, you know. So it needs something else to replace it. I agree.

Q: Anne, if one wishes to analyse the works of art in Freud or Jung, would you spend initial research thinking about Jung before Freud’s?

A: There’s a joke an old friend of mine used to make, I’m a Freud, you’re too young to know. I don’t know if, yeah, probably go with Freud first and then Jung. But not necessarily. You can look at the symbols, the images from a cultural perspective and historical perspective and understand them in that way. Freud would be looking from a more personal, the neurosis and the unconscious. But both of them are dreams. They’re both coming out of that world. It’s just what’s in the dreams.

Romaine, one of the ironies that Freud brought Jung on board to offset antisemitism and Jung introduced a brilliant way of thinking. Yeah, yeah. I mean Freud certainly brought Jung on board absolutely. And hoped that he would become, as he said, the Joshua to his Moses, the leader afterwards. And I think it was their disappointment, which ironically of course very archetypal of Freud to say.

Okay, Herbert, fascinating. Thank you. Plus human focus on him. Thank you.

Q: Jack, given modern genetics and biochemistry, do you think that these types of explanations are pseudoscience?

A: That is a profound question, Jack. And yes, artificial intelligence and genetics may well show. I have no idea. But genetics in the future may show all of this is nonsense. It’s actually all genetic anyway. Memory is genetic. So, but we ain’t there yet in science. But genetics and neuroscience may move in that 100 years, 150, anything is possible.

Susan, get well Wendy. And Rose, I’m a bit confused. Jung was German. Well, no, he was Swiss and went to university in Basel, Switzerland and Zurich and so on. German speaking Swiss. Itamall, during the Weimar years Vott studied in Germany. Yep. I don’t know, it’s an interesting question if you went to the lectures of Jung, I don’t know. Very interesting.

Q: Okay, Julian, does anyone link the ideas of the venom or the shadow with a serpent in Eden?

A: I hadn’t thought of it. It’s a great idea. Yes. And I think Camus would definitely, probably be aware of it. It’s, again, it’s a symbol. It’s an image in a Jungian way, which evokes meaning and becomes unforgettable in our imagination through the metaphor. Marcia, hi, and hope you’re well in Canada. Hell is denial. Yeah. Refer to Diana Taylor’s term, perceptacide. Deliberate and willful evasion. That’s interesting. I didn’t know of Diana’s phrase. We gave a lecture together at the Sorbonne many years ago. Roberta, in Dante’s “Inferno” which is funnel shaped, Satan lives at the bottom. One thinks the inferno is hot, but the bottom where Satan lies, its ice cold. Yep. And we learned in graduate schools, the cold represents indifference, not caring. Perhaps it’s denial of the shadow. Yes.

And Roberta, I would agree with you, Dante’s “Inferno” at the bottom of hell is ice cold, as you say, it’s not fire. And in the icy cold, live Brutus and Judas betrayal, and at the bottom rung of the inferno, the worst crime of all for Dante is betrayal. It’s not murder, it’s not other things. It’s betrayal. And I think, you know, maybe I’m stretching it here, but you know what is betrayal in human nature? You know, the good and the evil parts of human nature. The aspiration, the ideals and the despair. You know, there’s betrayal going on. You know, we betray ourselves, not only others.

Okay. The interview was the late '50s, '57, '58, I think.

Q: Was Vott particularly aware of human nature?

A: I don’t know. Interesting speculation. Joan, thank you.

Q: Barbara, who would describe human behaviour as driven more by survival than other traits?

A: Survival, power, sexual desires, you know, meaning of life. All these are, you know, I think in a way, when I look at Jung and Freud and many others, it’s like reading “Hamlets” or Shakespeare. There are a thousand interpretations. Not that one is right or wrong, but all that matters is what we find in our own era. The meaning that we find in our own era, that these great writers can give us. I feel that the same with these guys. It’s not mathematical. It’s not no wrong or right. Two and two equals four.

Karen, Hitler’s voice is his unconscious just as Trump. Trump expresses himself as an editor.

Q: Okay. Anthony, Did Jung talk about who or what was the collective arbiter of good and evil?

A: Interesting. Not that I’ve come across. Very interesting idea. Carissa, I believe Jung’s father was a pastor. Yep. He came from a religious family. Very much so. He said, he said, I don’t believe, I don’t need to believe in God. I know. Now it’s slightly ambiguous because is it a literal God? Is it God as metaphor or is it a spiritual being? Not necessarily a transcendental one figure, but you know, it’s open to interpretation what he meant by that phrase. Jung. His work.

Q: Ruth, could you explain his work with related to ageing?

A: Well, I think by bringing the archetype and looking at parts of India and Africa and elsewhere, and the sage archetype he tried to bring into Western culture. The idea of, well, what do we do with, in old age, with people old age, not only, you know, feeding, looking after and giving medical care, but how are they treated and respected in society? Are they put in the side door, in the side room? Or are they, you know, the elders. I’ll never forget going to one of the ethnic groups in South Africa in Quaqua, and doing some theatre workshops years ago, you know, half a million people and everything. They couldn’t care about who the political leaders were, this, that, or whatever. What matters were the elders. And there was a queen. She was the leader of the 12 elders. And she was the eldest. She was the elder. 82, 83. And then there were the elders in their late 70s with her and what they said ruled half a million people. Now, I don’t want to romanticise it, but the sense of the elders and a position in society, not only that they have medical care obviously, and enough food and so on, that’s obviously essential, but a respected position with dignity and humility. I think that’s what Ruth, I think that’s what Jung at least tentatively tried to bring back in. Ada, thank you. In movies and culture.

Okay, thanks. Appreciate Susan. Thank you. Dion cannot help thinking of what Jung would’ve made of Boris. Well, I think you would say is the trickster who knows how to get away with it and doesn’t take, what’s interesting, I think with these characters is not only Boris, but many others is that they don’t, it’s transactional. They don’t need to take anything seriously. It’s a game. You can play it in all different ways. There’s no moral belief. There’s no religious belief or any belief of any kind. So I don’t only want to single out one leader. I think many, you know, and throughout history, and it’s a version of the trickster, I think. But remember, the trickster has the wisdom and is mischievous, cheeky, playful and all of that as well. So there’s both. But I think what’s fascinating is the PT Barnum type entertainer leaders of today are interested in entertainment and power obviously.

Q: Robin, did Jung identify female archetypes?

A: Yes. Which I would’ve gone into, but I think it’s a whole separate series of conversations. The mother, the child, and so on. Many, many.

Dorothy. Yeah. That would be a whole other. Yeah.

Okay. Gail, thank you. Thanks for everybody. Laurie. Jenny, thanks for your kind comments. Janine, Manny, Sarah Samuel. The Red Book. Yeah. Commercial available 2009. Okay, great. Thank you. Mavis, Thank you for your kind comments.

Karen. If only the two could have come to respect each other. Well, I think that there was always a respect. I mean, who knows the real reasons Freud broke off. I mean, there were personal reasons. The father son stuff, the archetype stuff. The difference in intellectual ideas, you know, many, many possible thoughts. Was Freud too stubborn, who knows? I think we can speculate. We can’t be conclusive. Mavis Lawrence van der Post, film about Jung. Yes. And van der Post, hugely influenced by Jung. And there are so many others. I just mentioned Fellini, a few of the other, the Beatles, you know, Jackson Pollack, many others, many, many.

Q: Elliot, the view today, what do these giants know about neurology?

A: Well, I think this is before the real development of neuroscience. It’s the very infant stages of neurology, which is obviously taken off massively. So neuroscience, which for me is part of one of the most interesting and important areas of scientific evolution now. So who knows where it’ll go and what will happen with these theories. They may stay, they may not, may be adapted. But that for me is part of the love of knowledge and how it adapts and changes and moves and shifts or gets trashed. Carols this book man and his symbols. Yeah. That’s one of the great books that he wrote much later in his life right towards the end of his life, after his experience in India where he looked at the meaning of symbols in Indian culture.

Barbara, thanks. Seymour. The technique of therapy. Whoa. That’s another whole area. Both dealt with dreams, you know, and many. Yeah. That’s a separate thing. Jan, thank you for your comment. Ian Macriss, you mentioned Jan, you mentioned the book, “The Divided Brain.”

Okay. I don’t know it fascinating. I’ll have a look. Julian, the tarot cards used to have Hebrew, a Hebrew letter on each card. I think there were 22 cards corresponding to 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. It’d be interesting to find out. Yep. Julian, that’d be great to know. Thank you. Lynn. Then either Jung or Freud recognised the chemical base of mental health. I think, no, I think that they were trying to move away from the links to madness. First obviously with the notion of hysteria, but the inherited meaning and societal and historical interpretation of mad and linking it to the physical. As saying last week with Freud, it was to say this can be mental. It doesn’t have to be mentally or physically caused. Today, that’s all up for question and research, you know, and that’s obviously a vitally important area of future research, current research. Merrill okay.

Q: Thanks Barbara. What would Jung think of social media today?

A: I would think that he would extend it from the radio. It was used in the Nazi time and film. And I think he would say it’s part of, you know, the phrase I’d love to use from Paul Gilroy, the post-colonial theorist. It’s what he called a groomed education. We’re are grooming a groomed ignorance, sorry, a groomed ignorance in education. We are grooming ignorance in education. It’s Gilroy’s phrase about colonialism and postcolonialism he’s talking about. But I think it’s similar today.

Q: So what do I think Jung would think of social media?

A: A similar thing. I think that it creates the ability for mass hypnosis and an outlet for the id, for the unconscious to attach itself to whatever object happens to come along its way. You know, the boogeyman is a Jew. The boogeyman is a Black person, whatever. You know, it can attach itself to anything. The algorithm will make it for you. You don’t even have to do it. The algorithm will do it for you. On the other hand, social media can give you a group of people with Alzheimer’s and you can learn an incredible amount and study or we can look at and understand anything about Jung or Dante. So it’s again, everything has its shadow. Gail, thank you Richard Knowles book, “The Jung Cult.”

Okay. Origin of a charismatic movement. Thanks. That’s great.

Q: Lyn, what parts of treatment involved administering herbs?

A: That’s another different area. I think Jung was fascinated, but as far as I know, he didn’t write all that much about specifically herbs. Carol, one or two places with a sense of community. Yeah, I know that’s an idea. Seymour Stanley Hall, ah, is a centre person at the back, just taken at Clark University. Yep. Thank you.

Okay, I think that’s most of the questions.

• Thanks David. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Judy. Thank you everybody for joining us today and enjoy the rest of your evening, afternoon, morning, and we will see you next week.

• Okay. And as always, thank you so much Wendy, Judy and Lauren. All right.

• Thanks, David, Thank everybody.

• And take care. Take care. Thanks. Bye-bye.