". . . And one way to do this is to view the psyche as a combination of three elements, these are; consciousness, the unconsciousness and the body. And, you can represent this very, very simplistically by saying: consciousness plus unconsciousness plus body equals psyche. . . ."
John Betts, Jungian Analyst; Podcast No.2
Access the podcasts at: Fundamentals of Analytical Psychology

The image, above, is used by the kind permission of the artist, Mark Wagner. To see more of his evocative work visit: Hearts & Bones Studio




Newest addition to our Article Library(June 14, 2016):

An interesting observation about entering the "inner world." There is no path, each of us must find our way and blaze our individual path.

An excerpt from: The Sword and the Grail: Restoring the Forgotten
Archetype in Arthurian Myth.

“Perhaps part of the answer lies in the quest itself, rather than merely in its object—the journey rather than the destination. In this sense, the Grail story serves as a roadmap rather than a simple travelogue describing the destination. The Grail tells us what, the quest tells us how. What differentiates the Arthurian Grail quest from mythic spiritual journeys in other cultures, what makes it uniquely and definitively Western, is the emphasis on the individual. In the East (if you’ll forgive the broad, sweeping generalization) the emphasis in spiritual seeking is apart from the individual. Seekers often wear pictures of a guru to remind them to keep their focus on the path and away from the individual, the ego, or the self. The way is important. the self is not (or at least much less so). But the knights seeking the Grail all enter the forest alone, apart from their fellows, in a place where the wood is thickest and where there is no path. When there is no path, only the self remains.”

Complete article can be read at: The Sword and the Grail

Wolfgang Geigerich describes the dilemma Jung's psychology faces today:

The century of psychology is over. The great expectations have been shattered that the emergence of psychology, in particular therapeutic or depth psychology, had given rise to at the beginning of the 20th century. Even Freudian psychoanalysis today is faced with a hostile spirit in mainstream thinking. For psychology in the tradition of C.G. Jung the situation is, on the one hand, a little easier, but on the other much more difficult. It is easier because for the most part it operates leeward of other psychologies, hardly being taken note of; it is more difficult because its innermost substance is fundamentally threatened.

This threat comes from different directions.

It is, firstly, already inherent in the very way Jungian psychology itself is construed, inasmuch as Jung’s high claim that his psychology was in the status of a strictly empirical science has proven untenable, and as his hope that psychology might provide an answer to the psychological-spiritual predicament of the age failed, as we are now forced to understand (W. Giegerich, “The End of Meaning and the Birth of Man,” Journal of Jungian Theory and Practice, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2004).

The threat to the substance of Jungian psychology comes, secondly, also from the adherents and friends of this psychology, on the one hand from the professional Jungians under whose hands it has been turned into something completely different from what Jung himself intended with his ‘complex psychology,’ as above all Sonu Shamdasani has demonstrated (Jung and the Making of Modern Psychology. The Dream of a Science, Cambridge University Press, 2003). No one is likely to want to say that what Jung had struggled with is still alive among them and has fruitfully been further developed by them. Still today one would probably concur with Hillman when he stated years ago that the Jungians “really are mostly second rate people with third rate minds” (Hillman, Inter Views, New York [Harper & Row] 1983, p. 36). Jungian psychology has the misfortune not to have been able to attract great minds, in contrast, e.g., to Freud’s psychology, which produced a psychologist like Lacan and was able to inspire many philosophers and poets. On the other hand, the threat comes also from the adherents of Jungian psychology in the wider public, among whom Jung’s work degenerated into “pop psychology,” in other words into a commodity, which has above all the function of satisfying private ideological-spiritual and emotional needs and thus of compensating for a feeling of lack.
(Wolfgang Geigerich, A Little Light,to be Carried Through Night and Storm), originally found on: The C. G. Jung Page.

What issues need to be addressed to resolve the dilemma Geigerich describes? Matt Koeske from over at "Useless Science" has considered this problem and offers some interesting thoughts.