Hi everyone,
Today our panel looked at the issue of defining depth psych, and there was movement on the panel and among the audience to try for something that could be agreed on.
I won't attempt it here. Instead, a thought about definitions in light of Jung's and Hillman's work on when the Puer / Puella (Divine Child) and Senex (Old One) archetypes show up:
For a while I was on an online discussion in the field of ecopsychology. Some of the older members spent who knows how many years wrangling about what the definition of the field should be. As far as I could tell, the discussion was entirely Saturnian, and so pedantic and senexian that I abandoned the endless fiddling for greener e-pastures. That is what happens when Senex takes over.
On the other hand, when Puer is in charge, we resist every attempt at definition as too confining. We want to fly, and be in our cosmic potential and unlimited freedom, and the heck with pinning anything down or committing to any statements or ideas.
I think we can come up with several working definitions (or descriptions might be a better word) of what depth psychology is and does if we mind the Puer and Senex and link them as we work. Just a thought.
Replies
Perhaps, it is best to allow for the various lens through which we see depth psychology to be present, but not to the point at attempting to place depth psychology into one rigid box (e.g. definition). I think that the various ways through which a therapist and/or client conceives of life meaning is always to be honored; let it be.
I have been away from the study of depth psychology for quite some time, but am fascinated with the various ways it is understood. As for my personal style, I simply draw upon the interpersonal aspect of working with another person; building trust and respect. It is precisely through this relationship, that revelations can be brought to light, discussed within the context of ones current life and quite simply, validated.
I know that for so many of you this may sound oh so simplistic and boring. But, I have had very meaningful outcomes through my own work with clients. Clients/patients seek those with whom they can trust and who can hold up in the face of revealing excruciatingly painful parts of their lives; never judging and always respecting them. I know that this is in contrast to how Jungian's work. I don't seek to dismiss the Jungian style of working with clients, it's just not what I find effective nor for those with whom I have worked.
I worked for several years as a psycho-social counselor in a facility that took in those who were prematurely discharged from the hospital. All during the transitional time of 'managed care.' Yes, it was an extension of running a hospital and thus I have seen it all.
Thanks for indulging me as I finally share some of my thoughts on this subject. I prefer to re-focus what is acquired through the study of depth to how clients and patients can be helped to 'evolve.'
Thank you,
Sharon DiLeo
Here are a few discussions about it:
http://www.depthpsychologyalliance.com/forum/topics/the-self-in-his... - The Self in Historical Light
http://www.depthpsychologyalliance.com/group/currentsofthefuture/fo... - James Hillman & Carl Jung
http://www.depthpsychologyalliance.com/forum/topics/james-hillman-p... - James Hillman: Postmodern Romantic Reductionist and Trickster
I've mentioned in that Craig Chalquist's webinar when live recording failed Alicia Juarrero and Terrence Deacon. Their work is about origins of consciousness. Juarrero has available online for free (made available by her) both a book and an article (the sentences overlap just partially) with the same title Dynamics in Action. She insists the importance of underlying stories (hermeneutic interpretation) in formation and changes of consciousness (just like Jung, but she never mentions Jung). She also mentions explanatory incompatibility of consciousness between individual neurons and the whole brain. In this vein she also mentions Aristotle and his four causes. Deacon's book was published later and, instead of considering to combine their ideas, Juarrero was busy suing Deacon although his work is more complete from the point of view of phenomenology, physics, neurology, theory of information, in other word the material side of the phenomenon. For some "strange" reason there are similarities between Jung's work on alchemy and "quaternion" and Deacon's work on four causes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature
A chapter written by me and where I mention Jung, Juarrero, and Deacon will be published here: http://www.igi-global.com/book/rethinking-machine-ethics-age-ubiqui... I've also submitted an updated and more "storytelling" article to a journal. If it gets rejected, as it seems it will be, I'll find another way to self-publish it.
Last but not least, it's absurd to talk about "Jungian cult". Everyone interested in the depth of his/her psyche has some experience resembling meditation, prayer, or psychedelic experience. We don't call those who carry, push, and pull things around members of Newtonian cult.
Also, for some strange reason Deacon's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature) ideas are similar to Pauli's dream of the World Clock: http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/divine.htm
There seems to be some material for someone who isn't me (I've tried and failed) to write about it for a journal focused on psychology, mythology, or similar.