The vocabulary of every author and every reader establishes their ability to understand and explain. This interviewee's ability to explain himself is hindered by the complexity and conflicts of his own understanding. The ability to explain a subject in simple terms is essential if you are to ensure that everyone acquires an understanding that matches your explanation. Every individual's understanding and ability to understand is determined exclusively by the limits of their personal vocabulary.
Concerning the nature of the unconscious, and by extension the nature of consciousness itself, it seems to me that the conscious/unconscious distinction is indicative of an interplay between more or less opposing fields of existential experience or states of "being", perhaps defined by the degree to which one is actually aware of their own experience. And when I say opposing, I don't mean to say that they are antagonistic so much as compensating and sympathetic / interdependent. Perhaps in a way they are or otherwise can be antagonistic, at least in terms of how these states or fields interact within the psyche of someone with a relatively disintegrated personality, because there is obviously conflict involved in the process of individuation and becoming conscious or more conscious, and vice versa in the process of reverting to more primitive unconscious states. But seen as relative and differentiated aspects of a contiguous totality, within the context of the recognition that psyche is a self regulating system, these differentiated states or fields must be understood as being more or less fundamentally sympathetic... That being said, the unconscious obviously doesn't need to be physical to be real, though perhaps there is some as of yet undiscovered physical quality which is associated with the unconscious/conscious fields of "being", perhaps some interdimensional quasi physical reality which we do not yet recognize or understand to literally exist in a materialistic sense. But that is still something of a metaphysical speculation which obviously cannot be proven one way or the other at this time, and doesn't really matter insofar as our understanding that consciousness/unconsciousness are in fact real at least insomuch as psyche is real, even if such things cannot be physically weighed or measured.
this is a good talk for the beginning psychology students... not being amateurish as a field. And having the rigor of philosophy... the need to read kant and hegel to understand space and form///also reading non-euclidean geometry, and i would say also reading whitehead/the concept of nature, in order to understand the Unconscious.
I also want to speak to what I think Jung actually meant by "your truth"... Jung obviously was not a post-modern relativist, that much I think it entirely evident. So then how can we explain his meaning? When Jung says "your truth", as I understand him, what he actually meant is something like "your values and convictions", because obviously it is our subjective values and convictions which ultimately influence our behavior and therefor defines who we ultimately are in terms of how we live our lives and relate to others. And though truth is necessarily objective, our perception of truth is largely subjective based on the limits of our awareness, perception and degree of personal experience. And so our values and convictions will be defined by those limits. That is a large part of what it means when we say "to your own self be true", that and being honest with yourself as much as possible. Remember that Jung was as much a poet as he was anything else. Also I think it should be noted that so much of Jung's is language is often poetic, and he employs a sort of poetic license which sometimes makes his meaning difficult to make sense of, especially in "Libre Novus", which he never actually intended to publish for mass consumption. So you obviously cant just cherry pick Jung if you want to understand him. You have to take everything he said and wrote within the context of everything else he has said or wrote.
I have to take exception with the dialogue around the 32 minute mark. Jung was the first to admit, and did so throughout his works, that his ideas in many areas were "works in progress" and his hope was always that others would come along behind to explicate and put the flesh on the bones to some of it.
@@sinalina5882 No he regresses to Hegel and comes along with Kant. He is a philosopher and not a psychologist. He just ignores Hegels mistakes , for example that his dialectic doesnt work! That Hegel thinks that Evil is a substance he thinks "Post-Modernists" are essential to psychology. No he is not smart, he is stuck in his philosophie. Giegerich tried to use Heideggers "tought-magic" the "soul" itself thinks. Then he tries to say that not only humans have "soul" so he has to actually introduce angels and demons or does he want to ay that "things" hve "soul" ? Yes thats what he do because everything else is just illsuion? What thinks a chair ? No no it thought the chair ! its just rambeling about stupid stuff
@@stevejurgens9985 You are just not smart enough to follow his thoughts. My advice to you is to not watch stuff you know nothing about. First year might be a good place to start love.
@@sinalina5882 You are just stupid to understand that these people talk stupid stuff. They are Idealists, romatics. And Giegerich doesnt understand what the problem with idealism is, why people got rid of this . In Hegels dialectic is the rationalistic split build in, the same split Giergerich discusses in "the neurosis of Pychology" to overcome this split, Hegel is not helpful. Also Hegel things that "evil" has a substance and "Evil" is the thing which start the dialectic, this is what Giergerich criticize about Jung but if Hegel is doing the same, it is good. Kant is no longer relevant. Because Jung is already a neo-Kantian and overcomes the neo-Kantians (In Hegalian terms "Aufhebung") This is what Kime doesnt understand. Because as he says he wants to be a smart ass "Im a philosopher"
@@toddm9643 I am not entirely sure if he still does Interviews or public speaking. For all I know he has a psychotherapy practice in Zurich now. But he still produces things in writing.
Thank you.
The vocabulary of every author and every reader establishes their ability to understand and explain. This interviewee's ability to explain himself is hindered by the complexity and conflicts of his own understanding. The ability to explain a subject in simple terms is essential if you are to ensure that everyone acquires an understanding that matches your explanation. Every individual's understanding and ability to understand is determined exclusively by the limits of their personal vocabulary.
I am guessing you have asked Giegerich to be a guest and that he declined?
We need more of this.
Concerning the nature of the unconscious, and by extension the nature of consciousness itself, it seems to me that the conscious/unconscious distinction is indicative of an interplay between more or less opposing fields of existential experience or states of "being", perhaps defined by the degree to which one is actually aware of their own experience. And when I say opposing, I don't mean to say that they are antagonistic so much as compensating and sympathetic / interdependent. Perhaps in a way they are or otherwise can be antagonistic, at least in terms of how these states or fields interact within the psyche of someone with a relatively disintegrated personality, because there is obviously conflict involved in the process of individuation and becoming conscious or more conscious, and vice versa in the process of reverting to more primitive unconscious states. But seen as relative and differentiated aspects of a contiguous totality, within the context of the recognition that psyche is a self regulating system, these differentiated states or fields must be understood as being more or less fundamentally sympathetic... That being said, the unconscious obviously doesn't need to be physical to be real, though perhaps there is some as of yet undiscovered physical quality which is associated with the unconscious/conscious fields of "being", perhaps some interdimensional quasi physical reality which we do not yet recognize or understand to literally exist in a materialistic sense. But that is still something of a metaphysical speculation which obviously cannot be proven one way or the other at this time, and doesn't really matter insofar as our understanding that consciousness/unconsciousness are in fact real at least insomuch as psyche is real, even if such things cannot be physically weighed or measured.
this is a good talk for the beginning psychology students... not being amateurish as a field. And having the rigor of philosophy... the need to read kant and hegel to understand space and form///also reading non-euclidean geometry, and i would say also reading whitehead/the concept of nature, in order to understand the Unconscious.
I also want to speak to what I think Jung actually meant by "your truth"... Jung obviously was not a post-modern relativist, that much I think it entirely evident. So then how can we explain his meaning? When Jung says "your truth", as I understand him, what he actually meant is something like "your values and convictions", because obviously it is our subjective values and convictions which ultimately influence our behavior and therefor defines who we ultimately are in terms of how we live our lives and relate to others. And though truth is necessarily objective, our perception of truth is largely subjective based on the limits of our awareness, perception and degree of personal experience. And so our values and convictions will be defined by those limits. That is a large part of what it means when we say "to your own self be true", that and being honest with yourself as much as possible. Remember that Jung was as much a poet as he was anything else. Also I think it should be noted that so much of Jung's is language is often poetic, and he employs a sort of poetic license which sometimes makes his meaning difficult to make sense of, especially in "Libre Novus", which he never actually intended to publish for mass consumption. So you obviously cant just cherry pick Jung if you want to understand him. You have to take everything he said and wrote within the context of everything else he has said or wrote.
Im quite surprised of the level of comments on this video...
I have to take exception with the dialogue around the 32 minute mark. Jung was the first to admit, and did so throughout his works, that his ideas in many areas were "works in progress" and his hope was always that others would come along behind to explicate and put the flesh on the bones to some of it.
Dr. Kime is probably a lot smarter then you, so you should agree with him because he accomplished more than you probably ever will in your small live.
@@sinalina5882 Yet you have no idea who I am, what I know or what I've done. But thanks for sharing anyway
@@sinalina5882 No he regresses to Hegel and comes along with Kant. He is a philosopher and not a psychologist. He just ignores Hegels mistakes , for example that his dialectic doesnt work! That Hegel thinks that Evil is a substance he thinks "Post-Modernists" are essential to psychology.
No he is not smart, he is stuck in his philosophie.
Giegerich tried to use Heideggers "tought-magic" the "soul" itself thinks. Then he tries to say that not only humans have "soul" so he has to actually introduce angels and demons or does he want to ay that "things" hve "soul" ? Yes thats what he do because everything else is just illsuion? What thinks a chair ? No no it thought the chair ! its just rambeling about stupid stuff
@@stevejurgens9985 You are just not smart enough to follow his thoughts. My advice to you is to not watch stuff you know nothing about. First year might be a good place to start love.
@@sinalina5882 You are just stupid to understand that these people talk stupid stuff. They are Idealists, romatics. And Giegerich doesnt understand what the problem with idealism is, why people got rid of this . In Hegels dialectic is the rationalistic split build in, the same split Giergerich discusses in "the neurosis of Pychology" to overcome this split, Hegel is not helpful. Also Hegel things that "evil" has a substance and "Evil" is the thing which start the dialectic, this is what Giergerich criticize about Jung but if Hegel is doing the same, it is good. Kant is no longer relevant. Because Jung is already a neo-Kantian and overcomes the neo-Kantians (In Hegalian terms "Aufhebung") This is what Kime doesnt understand. Because as he says he wants to be a smart ass "Im a philosopher"
have him back to discuss kant and the transcedentals some more :::::::: that is so important ....
thanx - what like to hear more about Giegerich -- Thanx Dr. Kime
He is amazing. I had the opportunity to work with him for several years and his outlook on things is just beyond description.
@@sinalina5882 his writings are so profound. Does he do any public speaking? We need this.
@@toddm9643 I am not entirely sure if he still does Interviews or public speaking. For all I know he has a psychotherapy practice in Zurich now. But he still produces things in writing.
@Yeniden baslamak journal of analytical psychology
Finaly some f**king good food
Me too !