1DearColleagues,TheExecutiveCommitteeispleasedtolaunchthefirstseminarintheIssuesinJungianPsychologySerieswithDavidTacey’spaper,‘TowardANewAnimism:Jung,HillmanandAnalyticalPsychology.’FromDavidsomepointstoconsider:Theecologicalcrisisofthecontemporaryworldhasurgeduponusanewkindofanimism,inwhichthethingsoftheworldarealive,animated,spirited,mainlybecausethebodyoftheworldisexperiencingpain,pathologicalsymptomsandsuffering;thepsycheoftheworldoranimamundiisbeingdiscoveredinthesamewayinwhichpsychewasfirstdiscoveredinsufferingindividuals.Hillman’sworkdrawsoutcontradictionsinJung’stheorizing,andprivilegesJung’spost‐Cartesianvisionanditsaffirmationofannewkindofanimism,whichiseasilymistakenaspre‐modernanimism,andhenceasregressive.Hillman’s‘archetypalpsychology’isanattempttore‐appropriatewhathadbeenleftoutof‘Jungian’or‘analyticalpsychology’,butwhathere‐appropriatesseemssoforeigntoestablishedviewsthatitistreatedasalienanddisruptive.Thispaperraisesseveralissuesthatmaybefoundattheendofthepaperafterreferences.Bestwishes,MaryannDearColleagues,WehavehadsomethoughtprovokingandinspiringdiscussionsoflatefrommanycontributorsundertheheadingsofTERMSandANTIMONY.ThespectrumofperceptiontheIAJSmembershipholdcollectivelyonJungandwhatcomprisesJungianStudiescontinuestodemonstrateongoingfrontiersonboththesetopics.IsuspectsomeofthesedebateswillfindanewframeinthefirstseminaroftheIssuesInJungianPsychologySeriesthatcommencesonOctober1st.Theseminarsaredesignedtoraisetheissuesandputtheemphasisonquestionsratherthananswers.TheissueDavidTaceyidentifiesiswhetherJung’svisionofrealityisfargreaterthantheclinicalmodelofpsychologythatpurportstobe‘Jungianpsychology.’IsJung’spsychologyapsychologyatallorisitatheoryofcultureandcosmos?AlthoughJungfeltsoulisnotconfinedtotheindividualorhumancollective,theideaofsoulhasahabitoffallingbackintothehumanframeandbecomingcaughtinsideus.Identifyingtheissuesinthisseminar,beginswithDavidandcontinueswithyou.David’sabstractandbiographyfollow.Hisabsencefromthediscussionlistappearstobetimewellspentwithtwobooksdueforpublicationin2011andmorewiththeeditorscurrently.title:TowardaNewAnimism:Jung,HillmanandAnalyticalPsychologybyDavidTacey

2abstract:Jung'spsychologyhasfocusednotonlyonthepsycheofthepatientbutalsoonthepsycheor"soul"oftheworld.AsJung'sworkdeveloped,heseemedlessinterestedintheclinicalsettingandmoreinterestedinrecoveringtheancientnotionofanimamundiorthe"psychological"dimensionoftheworld.ThismeansthatJungwasforcedtoreverseandcontradictsomeofhisearlierfindingsandpositions.Forinstance,thenotionof"withdrawingprojections",astandardconceptinclinicalworkandvirtuallyunchallengedintherapeuticcircles,wasseriouslychallengedbyJung'sownlaterwork.Heseemedtothinkthatprojectionsmighttellusmoreabouttheworldthanhadhithertobeenconsidered.Infact,attheheartofJung'svisionisthedevelopmentofanewanimism,adirectionofhisthinkingwhichisemphasisedbytheworkofhisfollower,JamesHillman.HillmandrawsoutandhighlightsadimensionofJung'sthinkingwhichanalyticalpsychologyhastendedtoignoreordiminish.biography:DrDavidTaceyisReaderinLiteratureandPsychoanalyticStudiesatLaTrobeUniversity,Melbourne.Heistheauthoroftwelvebooks,includingGodsandDiseases(2011),EdgeoftheSacred(2009),TheSpiritualityRevolution(2003)andReEnchantment(2000).DavidwasborninMelbourne,andgrewupinAliceSprings,centralAustralia.Itwasherethathewasinducted,asaboy,intotheanimisticworldviewofAboriginalcultures.Hestudiedliterature,psychologyandphilosophyatFlindersandAdelaideUniversitiesinthe1970s,andinthe1980scompletedpost‐doctoralstudiesinarchetypalpsychologyandcultureintheUnitedStates,underthedirectionofJamesHillmaninDallas.DavidisaspecialistinJungiandepthpsychology,andhisbooksonJunginclude:TheJungReader(Routledge2011),HowtoReadJung,(Granta2006),TheIdeaoftheNuminous:ContemporaryJungianandPsychoanalyticPerspectives(editedwithAnnCasement),(Routledge2006),andJungandtheNewAge(Routledge2001).DavidregularlygivesshortcoursesatthesummerschooloftheC.G.JungInstituteinZürichandisontheeditorialboardsofseveralinternationaljournalsofJungianstudies,includingJungJournal:CultureandPsyche(SanFrancisco).Heisapublicintellectualwhoisofteninvitedtoaddresscontemporaryissuesincludingecologicalawareness,mentalhealth,spiritualityandAboriginalAustralia.Hisbookshavebeentranslatedintonumerouslanguages,includingCantonese,KoreanandFrench.IlookforwardtoreadingyourresponsestoDavidTacey’spaperandtheissuesthatcomefromit.Bestwishes,MaryannBarone‐ChapmanSeminarMuseMemberoftheExecutiveCommitteeDearall,First,Davidthankyouforpresentingthisstimulatingpaper.Therearealotofdirectionswhichonemighttakehere.Iguessmyinitialresponsetothenewanimismishowitrelatestotechnology.InowliveinsunnyCaliforniaandmydrives

3toworkandschoolproceedalongthePacificocean.Indeed,thereiseternalmagictotheexpanseoftheocean,especiallywhenitssurfaceisbrokenbythefinsofpeakingdolphins.Myemotionalresponsetothisismostcertainacombinationofit(theocean)andme.Yet...contraRobertFrost‐"Thepeoplealongthesand/Allturnandlookoneway./Theyturntheirbackontheland./Theylookattheseaallday."‐thepeopleinthethickrushhourtrafficnexttomearetypicallynotlookingouttosea.TheirnosesareburiedintheirBlackberries.So,evenifJunghaswonavictoryofsorts,isitaPyrrhicone?Hastechnologyoverrunall?Ordoestechnologypartakeinthenewanimism?Bestwishes,DanDearDanandAll,Firstly,IhaveonlybeenputbackontheListafewhoursago,soonlynowdoIhavethechancetoreadandrespondtopostings.ItisgreattobebackonthisList,evenifforalimitedtime.Ineedabitofself‐imposedisolationtogetmyworkdone.....ItakemycueonthenewanimismfromJamesHillman,whohaswrittenaboutitinseveralplaces,andwetalkedaboutitlastmonthinMontreal,attheIAAPcongress.IfanyoneonthisListisinterestedinmyfulldiscussionofthissubject,Ihavean8thousandworkunpublishedpaperonit,whichIampreparedtosendoutonPDFformattothosewhomightwanttogodeeperthanmyoriginal5‐pagepapercouldallow.The8,000worderexploresHillman'sanimismindepth.Ithinktheideaofareanimatedworldextendsfarandwidetoday.Yes,technologyisnottobeseenascontraanimismbutasanintegralpartofit.Justthinkabouthowmanypeoplehavepetnamesfortheircarsandbikes‐thatisanimism,ofcourse.Technologyisobviouslykeytothisreanimatedexperienceoftheworld,butintechnologywetendtofindreanimationinbothapositiveandapotentiallydemonicform.Thatis,theworldis"alive"withmachinesthatattimesseemhellbentondestroyingthenaturalworld.ThisisalargethemeinlateHeidegger‐thetechnologicalworldasademonicformofanimation.YouquoteRobertFrost,butallowmetoquoteHillman,whowaxeslyricalhereinwaysthatremindmemoreofHeideggerthanofJung:‘Inthenineteenthcenturypeopledidn'ttalkaboutpsyche,untilFreudcamealonganddiscoveredpsychopathology.Nowwe'rebeginningtosay,'Thefurniturehasstuffinitthat'spoisoningus,themicrowavegivesoffdangerousrays.'Theworldhasbecometoxicandfullofsymptoms.Isn'tthatthebeginningofrecognizingwhatusedtobecalledanimism?’Hillmancontinues:‘Theworld'salive‐mygod!It'shavingeffectsonus.'I'vegottogetridofthosefluorocarboncans.''I'vegottogetridofthefurniturebecauseunderneathit'sformaldehyde.''I'vegottowatchoutforthisandthatandthat.'Sothere'spathologyintheworld,andthroughthatwe're

4beginningtotreattheworldwithmorerespect.’[i]<#_edn1>[i]<#_ednref1>Hillman,We'veHadaHundredYearsofPsychotherapyandtheWorld'sGettingWorse,p.4.bestwishes,DavidDearDanIhavenothadtimeyettoreadanddigestDavid’spaper,letaloneconsiderhowtonegotiatethesetofstimulatingquestionswhichfollowit.However,inpartcontinuationofmyrecentremarksontheenchantment/disenchantmentquestion,IwouldliketotakeupDan’sintroductionofthequestionoftechnologyintothedebate.ItisakeystoneoftheoldWeberianargumentthatoneofthefactorswhichhas‘disenchanted’themodernworldistechnology.Thisargumentsetsupthebinary:Nature,thewild,enchantmentvs.Technology,thecity,disenchantment.Asurbanisationandtechnologyspread,so,wearetold,theworldbecomesdisenchanted.Romanticandenlightenmentthinkingsagreeaboutthis,thoughtheydisagreeaboutwhethertorejoiceordespairaboutit.Attheriskofbecomingtediousabouttheantinomial,Iwouldsuggestthatweshouldreallyhaveleftthispolaritybehindalongtimeago.Isitreallythecasethattechnologyandthecityarelessanimatedthanthewilderness,ormightitbethattheyaremerelydifferentlyanimated?Iwouldbethefirsttoagreethatthemodernworldhasseenacollapseofthekindsofoverarchingspiritualcontainerspreviouslyprovidedbythegreatreligions,andfurthermorethatmythsoftheinexorableprogressofscienceandreasoncanandhavebeendehumanising.However,ifasmodernswewanttoengagewithsoulinthemodernworldweinhabit,ratherthanthelostworldofnostalgia,weneedtopayattentiontotheplacesofenchantmentwhichshowupinthemidstofmodernity,if,thatis,wearenotgoingtobeblindedbyourprejudicesaboutwhatthenuminousoranimatedworld‘ought’tolooklike.Forexample,fromthemomentofitsinvention,theentirelymoderntechnologyofphotographywasexperienced“asanuncannyphenomenon,onewhichseemedtounderminetheuniqueidentitiesofobjectsandpeople...creatingaparallelworldofphantasmaticdoublesalongsidetheconcreteworldofthesenses”.(UncannyReflections,ModernIllusions:SightingtheModernOpticalUncanny,TomGunning).Themysteryofsuchaphenomenonbecomesamplifiedinthe‘animated’anddreamlikeworldofthecinema,whichhasneverceasedtohauntmodernlifeandfantasy,butitcanalsobefoundinsuccessivewavesoftechnological‘wizardry’:thetelephone,thegramophone,thewireless,thetelevision,theinternet...allhavethecapacitytopenetratethe‘uneasyspacebetweenthephysicalandtheimaginary’andthusdestabilisethehardandfastboundariesofegoidentityinparallelwaystowhatweexpectfromaanimisticphenomena.BestwishesMark

5DearMark,Thankyouforyourthoughtfulcomments.Nodoubt,television,theInternet,film,etc.isenchanting.Thequestioninmymindiswhetherthisenchantmenthasoverriddenorsubtractedfromnature'senchantment.Again,Ihaveinmymindallthosecommuterswhen,stuckinatrafficjamandfacedwiththeoptionoflookingouttoseaorcheckingtheirBlackberries,invariablydothelatter.Iagreethatthereisnothingthatinevitablymakesthisazero‐sumgame.Butitseemstobeplayingoutthatway.Itseemstome,asapracticalmatter,thattheextraordinaryspecialeffectswhichanimatenotonlyoursci‐fifilmsbutevenourcommonplaceTVcommercialshavebecomesoalluringandsoenchantingsoastorenderpooroldNatureboringbycomparison.ThespiritofNatureisasubtleone,anditstrikesmethatitisbestreceivedbyasoulsensitivetosubtletyandquiet.Doestheubiquitousavailabilityofmedia,videogames,e‐mail,texts,etc.interferewiththat?Iaminclinedtosayitdoes.Bestwishes,DanDearDanWhenIusetheterm‘enchantment’Iamnotreferringtoaconsciousdeliberateattemptbyphotographerorfilm‐makertoenchantorallurebuttoaphenomenonwhichcanaccompanyourexperienceofthetechnologicalmediumitself.Inthemodernworldthisseemstotaketheformofanuncanninessaroundtheevent,ratherthananold‐fashionedreligiousnuminosity.Technologicaldevelopment,contrarytothedoctrineofdisenchantedmodernity,seemstoexciteasenseofaweandtheuncannywhichparallelsthatwhichwasinpreviouserassuppliedbyreligiousormysticalphenomena.ErikDavisforexampletalksaboutthe"electromagneticimaginary,"signallingatranspositionofnotionswhichwefindinanimismoralchemysuchasenergiesandspiritsintothetechnologicalrealmofelectricity.FormoreonthisseeP.Thurschwell,Literature,TechnologyandMagicalThinking:1880–1920(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2001),JeffreySconce,HauntedMedia:ElectronicPresencefromTelegraphytoTelevision(DukeUniversityPress2000).ThereisaninterestingarticlebyartistsHollingtonandKyprianouonTechnologyandtheUncannyathttp://www.electronicsunset.org/joint_projects/technology_and_the_uncannyBestMarkDearMark,Youwrite,"Technologicaldevelopment,contrarytothedoctrineofdisenchantedmodernity,seemstoexciteasenseofaweandtheuncannywhichparallelsthatwhichwasinpreviouserassuppliedbyreligiousormysticalphenomena."Iagree.

6Myquestioniswhetherthiscapacityoftechnologicaldevelopmenttoexcitesuchawehasdrownedoutthecapacityofnaturetoexciteitsawe.Best,DanDearDanInordertoansweryourquestionIthinkwewouldneedtounpackwhatwemeanby‘nature’.Afterall,whatwerefertoasthenaturalworldis,inasense,ahistorico/socio/culturalconstruction.Forusmoderns‘nature’isoftenseenashalfofabinarywith‘culture’(i.e.technology);butthisitselfisaprettyarbitrary(andrelativelyrecent)distinction.The‘awe’youdescribeasexcitedbynaturederivespreciselyfromoursenseofseparatenessfromit.Ananimisticculturewould,Isuspect,a)notexperiencenatureas‘nature’andb)notexperiencenatureassublime,becauseofthethorough‘participation’ofthehumananimalinclan,tribe,totemandworld.So,paradoxically,iftheworldwere‘re‐enchanted’thenwewouldceasetoexperienceitsenchantment.Hmm...BestMarkMark:Iagreewithyourhypothesisasreflectedthoughtthelensofabinaryworldview.However,inmy40yearexperiencewithAmericanIndianculture,ceremoniesandjustdailylife,i.e.for"traditional"natives(whohavenotbeenoverlyindoctrinatedwithawesternbinarypointofview),whatwecallaweisverymuchpartoftheirexperienceonaday‐to‐daybasis.Theirexperienceofitandthewaytheymightormightnotarticulateitwouldbedifferent,butitisthere.Forthemaweisnotawesterninventionoraprojectionfromanypointofview.Itisinherentinlifeitselfandso,aswewouldsayinonesense,"mundane,"forthemisalwaysawe‐inspiring.(Forthoseofyouwhohavemybook,LivingintheBorderland:TheEvolutionofConsciousnessandtheChallengeofHealingTraumaseepp.160‐161foranexampleofwhatIamtryingtoportrayhere.)Languageisanenormousproblemhereand"translation"doesnotusuallysufficetoconveytheirexperience.TheNavajowordforwhatIamaddressingheretranslatesto"Beauty"(thecapitalBisimportanthere).TheNavajowordforBeautyinthissenseisHozhowhichalsoconveyssuch(western)conceptsasbalance,harmony,resonance,at‐one‐ness,healing,completeness,wholeness...notonlyintheearthlyrealmbutinthecosmosasawhole.Dan'spointabout"enchantment"throughthatbinarylensringstrueintheabsenceofthecapacitytogetoutsideofthatbinaryview.Iammoreandmoreimpressedwiththeproblemoflanguage,particularlythestructureoflanguage,ismostlimitinginthisregard.Translationnotonlydoesn'tsufficeinmanyinstances,itexacerbatestheproblembecauseitisof,andthereforereinforces,abinaryworldview.Ithink

7thereisawaytobridgethisgapwhichiswhatmuchofmycurrentworkisfocussingon.JeromeBernsteinP.S.IforgottosaythatitisforthereasonsthatIhavestatedthatIdonotliketheword"enchantment"(or"re‐enchantment").Itkeepsonintheframeofthatbinaryworldviewanddoesnotopentoaworldview"fromtheothersideofthemirror."DearDavid,DanandAll,Inlightofyourpaper,I’vebeenthinkingaboutJung’sinterpretationofUFOcitings.Whatinterestsmeaboutthiswashowanincreasein‘ufosightings’wasinterpretedbyJungregardingashiftinthecollectivetolooktotheskies–ineffectforeshadowingthenewageasasocialphenomenon–ariseinanimism‐perhaps.Idon’treadJungasjumpingontheUFObandwagonbutfindingtheincreaseinthesesightingsthedesireforhopeinthefuture.Whatdoyouthink?Best,MaryannDearMaryannandAll,Youmakeaveryimportantpointhere,whichIhadinadvertentlyoverlookedwhilepreparingmylongandshortpapersonJungandanimism.Ofcourse,UFOsarekeytothewholepicture,butIhadnotseenthisuntilnow.TheUFOsstartedcoming,ormoreprecisely,"beingseen",intheyear1947,justaftertheWar.Theycombineafantasythatinvolvestechnology+animatedspirits‐i.e."aliens"fromotherworlds,whicharenothingifnotthespiritsofanimisminanewform.Theyaredefinitelythe20th+21stcenturycounterpartstothe"spirits"thatonceanimatedthenaturalworldinancientcosmologies.ButtolinkbacktoDan'spost,theytaketheformoftechnology.Soit'sbacktothedrawingboardforme,andpossiblytoamuchlongerpaperthanIhadoriginallyanticipatedonthissubject.Thankyouverymuchforthispost,whichishelpful.Asyouwouldknow,JungwasnotsokeenontheideathattheUfoswereliterallyreal,butonlyontheideathatpeoplewereseeingthem‐i.e.phenomenology.Butitisthephenomenologyofanewanimism.Now,Ihavetore‐readJung's1958paperonUFos,withthisdiscussioninmind.DavidHiMark,Ienjoyedyourpost,andthanksforit.

8Yes,wesetupanunnecessarybinarybetweennatureandtechnology,Iagree.Butjustassomeofthespiritsofthewoodsare(were?)demonic,cheekyandevil,sotoosomeofthespiritsoftechnologyareapttomoveinthedemonicdirection.Sowemustnotcreateafurtherbinary,i.e.,that"spirits"aregood,and"lackofspirits"(ordisenchantment)bad.Enchantmentgetsgoodpresstoday,butwehavetorecallthatitisclosetobewitchment,andneedstobeseeninthiscontext.Inhisbook,"TheRe‐enchantmentoftheWorld",MorrisBermanaccusesJungofgoingbacktoalostpastoralidyll,andnottakingusintothepostmodernorpost‐Cartesianworld.IdisagreewiththisreadingofJung'sanimism,butforwhatit'sworth,hereissomeofBerman'scritique:Jungbrokewithscientism,butdoingsopropelledhimbackwardintime.InMedievalandRenaissancealchemyherecognizedawholenessthatpermeatedthepsycheoftheMiddleAges,andwhichwasstillpresentinhumandreamlife.Clearly,dreamanalysishasatimelessimportance,butanyscienceconstructedonJungianpremiseswouldnecessarilybeastraightforwardrevivaloftheoccultworldviewandthusareturntonaïveanimism.Jungshowsusthepathtoanon‐Cartesianworldview,buthispremisescannotbethebasisforapost‐Cartesianparadigm.[i]<#_edn1>[i]<#_ednref1>MorrisBerman,TheReenchantmentoftheWorld(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1981),p.156.IhavebeentoldbyMaryannthatyou,Mark,havebeendiscussingZizekonthislist,andZizekhasnothingbutcontemptforJung'sformofanimism,whichheseesassentimentalandregressive.HereisonequoteIhavefoundtodate:Jungadvocatesareturntothepre‐modernuniverseofWisdomanditssexo‐cosmology,theuniverseofaharmoniouscorrespondencebetweenthehumanmicrocosmandthemacrocosm–thatistosay,forhimthesubjectofpsychoanalysisisthepre‐modernsubjectlivinginauniverseinwhich‘everythinghasameaning’.[i]<#_edn1>DavidDearDavidThanksforthisstimulatingpaper.Goodtohaveyouback,howevertemporarily.Asyouhavebeeninformeditarrivessynchronistically(?)inthewakeofashortdiscussiononthelistonthesubjectofenchantment/disenchantmentwhichoriginallycameoutofareferencetotheveryquotefromLacanyouciteinyourpaper.MyresponsestowhatyouhavewrittenareinevitablycolouredbythisdiscussionandwhileIshallattempttoavoidrepeatingmyselfinwhatIsaynow,acertainamountofreiterationisprobablyunavoidable.Inbrief,IquestiontheWeberianbinaryoppositionofpre‐modernenchantment/moderndisenchantment,whichIseeasitselfamodernistfantasy.Itisanimportantfantasybecauseitunderpinstwoverydifferentperspectivesontheworld:first,theromanticnarrativeofalostandirretrievableparadise,andsecond,

9theenlightenmentnarrativeofthetriumphalprogressofrationalityovercomingsuperstitionetc.Twosidesofthesamecoin.WeknowthattheJungianperspectiveismuchmoresympathetictothefirstofthese,butmypointisthatbothdependuponthesamedubiousassumptions.Ithinkweneedtobeverycarefulabouttakingthisenchantment/disenchantmentfantasytooseriouslyashistoricalorethnographicfact:ittellsusalotaboutwhereweareasmodernsbutnotalotaboutthesupposedlyenchantedworldofanimism.Your(andBerman’sandHillman’s)argumentseemstorelybroadlyuponthisenchantment/disenchantmentnarrative,butwiththetwistofsuggestingthepossibilityofathirdstage:re‐enchantment.Ifindmyselfinagreementwithmuchofwhatyousayaboutthewaysthisthirdstagerevealsitself,anditsimportancefromasocio‐/eco‐/politico‐angle,thoughIthinkwedifferinthatIseeenchantmentasbeingalwaysalreadypresentinmodernity.Inotherwordsmodernityisandalwayshasbeenthoroughlyenchanted,andthoughthisenchantmenthasremainedhitherto,forvariousreasons,mostlyhidden,nonethelessinrecentyears,inthelightofapost‐modernperspectiveonmodernity,ithasbecomemorevisibleasenchantment,thoughincharacteristicallymodernforms.However,I’dliketopointupacoupleofissuesandquestionswhich,forme,getthrownupbythedetailedargumentofyourpaper.Inyourfirstparagraphyoudescribeathreestagemodelofthe“developmentofhumanthought”.Thefirststage(“enchantmentthroughpantheismandanimism”)ischaracterisedbywhatyoucallan“archaicliteralismabout‘spirits’innature”.Lateryousuggestthatinanimismthe‘depthdimensioninnature’is“interpreted...inliteralandmetaphysicalways”.Iamnotsurewhatyoumeanby‘literal’inthiscontext.Itseemstomethatthewholeconceptofliteralness(asopposedtometaphoricity)dependsuponawholesetofdistinctivelymoderndistinctions.Perhapsyoucouldgiveanexampleofthekindofliteralbeliefyouareattributingtotheanimist.Youcontrastthis‘literalness’oftheanimistwitha“fluidandmetaphoricalawarenessaboutsoulintheworld”thatistocomewiththethird‘re‐enchanted’stage.IhaverecentlybeenreadinganthropologistWillerslevontheSiberianYukaghirtribe(whosereligiousbeliefstendtobecategorisedasanimist,thoughtheuseofthislabelisitselfcontroversial).Inthelightofthis,itoccurstomethata“fluidandmetaphoricalawarenessaboutsoulintheworld”wouldseemtodescribetheYukaghirapproachprettywell.WillerslevtalksabouttheYukaghircosmosbeingsaturatedwithliminality:soulsaresubstanceandnotsubstance,peoplearesoulandbody,selfandreincarnatedother,huntersarehumanandanimal,predatorandprey,‘natural’and‘supernatural’etc.Idon’tthinkwecandescribethisverynuancedworldviewasinanysenseliteralist;WillerslevdescribestheYukaghircosmosasamimeticisedworldinwhicheverythingispairedwith“analmostlimitlessnumberofmimeticdoublesofitself,whichextendinalldirectionsandcontinuallymirrorandechooneanother.”Themimeticqualityoftheirinterractionwiththeworldmeansthattheyareneither,ontheonehand,fusedwithitinsomekindofLevi‐Bruhlianundifferentiatedparticipationmystique,norcutoffintoCartesian‘objectivity’.WhilethisisaworldviewwhichevidentlydiffersenormouslyfromourowninthedevelopedWest,Iwouldclaimthattherearefundamentalaspectsofthis‘beingintheworld’whicharesharedbybothcultures,thoughinoursthesemimetic/animisticaspectsarenotthematisedandthereforenottheorised:

10theytendtoremaininvisible,thoughstillpresent.Mysuggestionisthatthedifferencesbetweenthesetwoverycontrastingculturesareatleastpartlyperspectivalratherthanqualititative,letaloneevolutionary.Obviouslythesedifferencesinperspectivestillneedtoberecognisedasdifferent,butitdoesmakeitharderfortheanimistperspectivetobeviewedaseitheranearlier‘primitive’stageoftheevolutionofsoulorasasuperior‘noblesavage’stateofnature,thetwinpitfallsintobothofwhich,asyoupointout,Jungfellatvarioustimes.Iwouldliketotakeuptheimportantquestionofprojectiontoo,butthispostislongenoughalready.BestwishesMarkDearMarkandAll,Thanksforyourpost.IneedtopointoutthatIdonothavethetimetorespondtoeveryposttothisseminar,muchasImightwantto.Mytimeforemailingislimited,asIhaveseveralprojectsthathavealreadygonebeyondtheso‐calleddeadline(!).Forme,akeydifferencebetweenarchaicandpostmodernanimismisthequestionofliteralism.Thearchaicperspectiveseemstosee"spirits"inlandscapeandnatureasliteralthings,whichcouldbe,forinstance,photographedifonewereintherightplaceattherighttime,orhadtherightkindofphotographicequipment.Thepostmodernanimist,andIwouldcertainlycountJungandHillmaninthiscategory,"sees"gods,spirits,soulsintheworldinprimarilymetaphoricalterms.Suchforcesare"there",butnotliterally.Indeed,toregardthemliterallyisforJungasignofpsychosis,andforHillmanasignofparanoia‐orwhathecallsa"disorderofmeaning".Sothisquestionaboutliteralandmetaphoricaliscentraltothisentireargument.WhatyousayabouttheSiberianYukaghirtribeisveryinteresting.Ihaveoftenwonderedwhetherthe"literalism"ofarchaictribesisactually1)aconstructofearlyEuropeananthropologistswhodidnotunderstandwhattheyweredealingwith;2)amisrepresentationoftheanimismbymembersofthetribewhoarenotsufficientlyinducted/initiatedintothetribalmysteries;or3)acombinationofthesetwo.Forinstance,inmycountry,theAboriginaltribesaresaidtobe"animistic",butwhenonetalkstomenandwomenofhighdegree,asdistinctfromtheaveragetribalmember,onereceivesanentirelydifferent,moresophisticatedunderstandingofthespiritworld.Inmydiscussionswithsuchelders,onegainstheimpressionthatrealityis"saturatedwithliminality"‐asyousorightlyputit‐ratherthanfullofspiritbeingswhogobumpinthenight.Thisissimilartothedifferencebetweenspiritualityandspiritualism.JungiananalystCraigSanRoque,basedincentralAustralia,hasbeenworkingonthistopic,andhisresearchisveryinteresting.Thenotionofanentirelyliteralunderstandingofarchaicbeliefsandworldviewsmaybeamisunderstanding,hehasbeensaying.

11AsHillmanarguedin"Re‐VisioningPsychology"(p.12),theveryideaofanimism,originallyintroducedbyTylor(1871),mayenduptellingusmoreaboutlatenineteenthcenturyanthropologistsandcommentatorsthanthetribalworlditself.ThefeelingIhavehadforsometimeisthatthosewhoseektodebunkJungandHillmanalwaysdeliberatelymisreadthemasliteralanimists,andinthiscategoryonewouldplaceRichardNoll,whospectacularlyreadJungwronglytooverthrowhisargument.ButthisisatrickperformedbymanycriticsoftheJungiantradition,anditis,onecouldsay,adirtytrick.Itreadsourfieldinbadfaithorinthewrongspirit.Ontheotherhand,thereisadifferentschoolofdebunkingwhichtendstosaythatifaspiritorgodismetaphoricalitcannotbereal.Inresponsetothiskindofcriticism,archetypalandanalyticalpsychologyhastoemphasizetherealityofthemetaphorical.Thepowerofmetaphorandsymbolhastoberestored,aspointingtosomethingreal,notmerelytotheallegoricalorthedecorative.Bytheway,mypaperdoesnotquoteLacan,butratherZizekcommentingonJung.ItisimportanttorealizethatWeber'sschemaisnotasdogmaticasyousuggest.InTheProtestantEthicandtheSpiritofCapitalism(1905)MaxWebernotedthedryingupofreligionandarguedthatweweremovingintoaperiodofincreasingdisenchantment.Heusedthephrase,EntzauberungderWelt,the‘demagicalizationoftheworld’,andobservedthatthishadtakenplacenotonlyinsocietybutinreligionitself,exemplifiedintheProtestantreformationagainsttheCatholicChurchanditsmysticism.Forhim‘disenchantment’meantnotonlythereleasefromaspellthathadboundustosuperstition,butmorebroadly,thattheworldnolongercontainedanyinherentmeaningorvaluesaroundwhichhumanbeingsmightorienttheirlives.However,evenasheformulatedthisidea,Weberhimselfwascriticalofit.Hearguedthattheseweresimplybroadtrends,andthateveninthe'modern'era,itis,ofcourse,possibletoseeenchantmenteverywhere,especiallyinthepersistenceofpre‐modernreligions.Webercommentedthathisownmother,acommittedbelieverinChristianity,wasevidenceofthe"persistence"ofenchantmentduringthemodernperiod.Soforhim,'disenchantment'wasamannerofspeaking.Inhislaterwork,suchas"ScienceasaVocation"(1918),Weberconcededfurtheronthepersistenceofenchantmentinthemodernera. So we have to concede that Weber was not really caught in a solid binary opposition and he was already deconstructing his theory even as he was developing it. Weber scholars Edward Shils, H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills have established and gone over this argument a number of times. Itmayhelptothinkofthesethreeterms:enchantment,disenchantment,re‐enchantment,notsomuchasstagesinalogicalorchronologicalsequence,butasformsofconsciousnessorawareness.Assuch,theycananddoexistside‐by‐side,simultaneously,andarenotlinearstages.Havingsaidthat,ourtime,inmyview,isstilllockedintodisenchantment.Thisisstillthedominantnoteofourculture,andprobablywillbeforatleastthenextcoupleofgenerations. One could say that re-enchantment, or 'new animism', is an ongoing, continuous "recovery" project which has no real beginning or end. William Blake was engaged

12in this project in the 1790s - and obviously not in response to a disenchanted 'modernity' as we know it, but in response to a kind of consciousness that was rapidly losing its capacity for vision. Blake championed re-enchantment in this way: "How do you know but every bird that cuts the airy way, / Is an immense world of delight, closed by your senses five?" On the other hand, disenchantment was for Blake an ever-present possibility, linked to fantasies of end of the world: Whenimagination,artandscienceandallintellectualgifts,allthegiftsoftheHolyGhost,arelookeduponasofnouseandonlycontentionremainstoman,thentheLastJudgmentbegins,anditsvisionisseenbytheimaginativeeyeofeveryoneaccordingtothesituationheholds.(Blake1810:604) If you get a chance to think about the question of projections, I would appreciate your reflections on this topic, as well. best wishes, David Dear David and All, I’m glad that you seem to have had a rapprochement with Hillman’s later work and would be most interested to hear your fuller thoughts on this. I’m not sure about new science leading us. Practitioners deal with synchronicities on a fairly regular basis whatever the latest scientific findings are. Just a few examples from my own practice are - the car that breaks down on the way to a session which will address a long avoided issue, the telephone that crackles and disconnects in a relationship that is itself breaking up, the man who’s mobile phone accidentally speed dials his wife while he is having an intimate conversation with his lover in a parked car, the ring that inexplicably slips off a client’s finger whilst they claim they have ‘nothing to discuss’, the light bulb that pops out of its socket in the middle of an intense and pregnant silence, etc, etc. The way we project our spatial awareness into machinery such as a car (with which we have a close and personal involvement) has its analogies and sometimes significant parallels to bodily life, engine for heart, windscreen for eyes etc. It’s hard not to be a least a bit ‘animistic’ when dealing with the day to day material that clients present. The ‘old’ science supports the notion established by the monotheistic religions that there is some outside place of truth (over and above) separated from creation. We can forget that notions of the divine as well as notions of scientific objectivity are themselves fantasies and products of the psyche. With equal justice we can see ourselves as embedded and immersed in the environment. Everything that we are is also to be found in the planet of which we are an integral part. Arguably this includes our consciousness and what we sometimes refer to as sprit and soul. Given this, the idea of projection takes on a different significance - parts of the psyche which are themselves a part of nature are projected into other parts of nature. In his new book David Abram raises the notion that we live in the earth rather than on it, in as far the atmosphere is a part of the planet that spins along with the rest of the earth as it turns. Some Native American traditions believe that humanity is the ‘little brother’ of creation rather than the apex of evolution. Despite the fleeting apparent

13success of our species we are creatures who are remain ill adapted to survival on earth with much yet to learn from others who have mastered this art. Lawrence speaks well of the ‘great swerve’. Practitioners are aware of the need to regress and to backtrack when important but neglected areas of the psyche demand attention through illness and symptoms. Different qualities are evoked in us not only by the imperatives of personal development or individuation processes but also from the needs and demands of a living, evolving and interactive environment. As they are brought into awareness sometimes through the alchemy of psychotherapy weaknesses can on some occasions become strengths as consciousness is adapted to the needs of the moment. Guy Dargert DearGuy,Iwillsendyou,offlist,acopyofmyfullerpaperonthissubject,whichexploresHillman'slaterwork.Happytosendittoanyoneelsewhorequestsitoffline.MyargumentisthatHillmanisoneofthefewtotakeupthecontroversyabout"projections",whichhasbecomeasacredcowofJungianpsychology,andalmostnooneeverquestionsit.Yes,synchronicityandanimismseemtosharecommonground,Iagreewithyou.IpersonallylikeDavidAbrahm'sworkverymuch,andalwayshavehisbookscloseathand.IcanwellimagineHillmangivinghimastandingovationatPacifica,becauseHillmanhasbeenunderthe"spellofthesensuous"forsometime‐evenhisearlyworkonImagewasaboutsavingtheappearancesfromthosewhowouldreducethemtoconceptsandideas.Lawrenceisbrilliantonthenotionofourneedingtotakea"greatswerve"‐thatparticularquoteisfromhisessayonHermanMelville,inhisStudiesinClassicAmericanLiterature.regards,David"Nothinghaseverbeenprojected;thatisawrongconceptionreally:thetermprojectioniswrong.Suchapsychologicalcontentalwayshasbeenoutside,itneverwasinside.Aso‐calledprojectionissimplyathingwhichisdiscoveredtobeoutsideandthenintegratedbythediscovererwithhimself.Ourpsychologywasallfoundoutside,itneverwasinourpocketstobeginwith."C.G.Jung,"TheInterpretationofVisions:V.ExcerptsFromtheNotesofMaryFoote."SpringJournal,(1964).‐JoelJoel,Thatquoteisarealfind,thankyouverymuch(!)Iwilltreasurethisquotation,asitisarealgem.

14Itgivesweighttowhatsomeofushavebeensuspectingforsometime,thatis,thereisarealdisjunctionbetweenJung'spsychologyandJungianpsychology.Sonuwasoneofthefirsttopointthisout,andIhavebeennoticingiteversince.Sonu:‘The history of Jungian psychology has in part consisted in a radical and unacknowledged diminution of Jung’s goal’.[i] <#_edn1> [i]<#_ednref1>SonuShamdasani,JungandtheMakingofModernPsychology:TheDreamofaScience(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2003),p.15.MosttextsonJungianPsychologysimplyassumethetheoryofprojectionsasself‐evidentlytrueandaxiomatic.However,Jungneverdid,andasIhavesaidbefore,thiscrisisinhistheoryhasneverbeenfullyexplored‐itbegsfurtherinvestigationbysomeonewithtimetoconductit.ButonewondersifJung"stayedrelativelyquiet"aboutthiscrisis,soasnottoupsetthedevelopmentofhisschool?Whatfactorsmighthavebeeninvolvedinthis?OrwasitmerelyacaseoftheJungiansnotunderstandingJung?DavidDavid,Goodtohaveyoubackonline.IwouldliketosharewithyouwhereIagreewithyourpaperandwhereIwoulddistancemyselffromitthoughIthinkitraisescrucialquestionsinmanyfieldsandissoundinitsbasicthrust..Isomuchagreewithyourunderminingofthenatural/supernaturaldistinctionthatstillprevailsinmonotheisticpsychologyandinculturesshapedbythem.Jung'sdiscussionwithBuberandWhitedemonstrateinboxcarlettersthatJungianpsychologysimplydoesnotreducetoanatural/supernaturalparadigmandsotoJewish,ChristianorIslamicorthodoxmainstreamimagination.I'veheardtheresponsethatthisislesstrueoftheirmysticaltraditionsbutifsoitisonlybecausethemysticsthemselvesareclosertotheunconsciousasthesolesourceofreligiousexperience.Youarequiterightinaffirmingthatwecannotgohometoany

15oftheseoptionsafterJung.Thequestionnowisnothowtobesavedthroughanyoftheseavenuesbuthowtobesavedfromthem.Eventuallythiswouldhavetodonethroughamythemergingprobablythroughthembutgoingbeyondthemtowardamoreuniversalsympathythanthesupernaturalandmonotheisticimaginationcanproffer.Iwouldalsoverymuchagreewithyourimplicationthatweshouldloseourfearofregression.InhisappropriationofMeisterEckhartandEckhart'sregressiontotheGodhead,Jungdefeatsthisfearexplicitly."AsaresultofthisretrogradeprocesstheoriginalstateofidentitywithGodisre‐establishedandanewpotentialisunleashed."CW6,par.431.InthispassageherelatessuchregressiontobothAustralianaboriginesandChristianmystics.ElsewhereherelatessuchprimitiveconsciousnesstotheHindutraditionofthePurushaandusestheterm"primitive"todescribeit.NeitherEckhartnoraspectsoftheHindutraditioncanbetermed"primitive"inapejorativesense.TheirusebyJungshouldberevaluatedwhenhearguestheprimitiveregressestothepointwheredivinity,humanityandnaturesharejointbeing.Ithinkthesepointarecrucialifcurrentcultureistoevolveamythbeyondthesuperficialitiesofreasonandconsciousnessdivorcedfromitsdepthswiththesubject‐objectsplittheycannotevadeandwhosesupersessiontheycannotimagine.ThissaidIdepartsomewhatfromyourcontentionthatJungmovesfromtheneedtowithdrawprojectionstoanendorsementoftheminhisunderstandingofanimism.IthinkeveninhisYalelectureshewritesthatconsciousnessdemandsthewithdrawalofprojectionsandspecificallythosethatcreatetheGods,theirrevelationsandcommunalfaithinThembindingcommunities

16toOneorOtheroftheOneandOnliesinpatternsofnowtooevidentsocialhostility.".everythingofadivineordaemoniccharacteroutsideusmustreturntothepsyche,totheinsideoftheunknownman,whenitapparentlyoriginated."CW11,par.105Inthisspiritheextendstherecoveryofdivinitytohumannatureitself,contendsthattheChurchhassplitwhatnaturehasunited,thedivineandthehuman,andtermsa"systematicblindness"theideathatdivinityisbeyondthepsyche.CW11,par.100.InthiscontextthenaturalpantheismJungattributestothepsycheneednotbedismissedorfeared.InfactJungisexplicitthatitsnegationbythechurchhascontributedtothespiritualsterilityofcurrentculture.CW14,par.773Thesetypicalpassageswouldinferthattherecoveryofprojectionsatthislevelwouldenablehumanitytoaddressthedivinewithinasthebasisofavastlyextendedsenseofthedivinewithout,indeedoneinwhichwhatexistswouldbeperceivedasalivewithalifemanifestingitsdivineorigin,inshort,withaprofoundanimisticsense.IalsothinkthatthedivisionofJungintowhatamountstoasolipsisticsubjectivityoveragainstanobjectivitysomehowbeyondthepsycheisexaggeratedtothepointoffalsifyinghispsychology.IthinkatleastthelaterJungcontendsthatthebasisofauniversalsentimentliesinthedepthsoftheindividualwheretheconnectionwithboththesouloftheworldandtheexperienceoftheunusmundusrestsonthe"eternalGroundofallempiricalbeing".CW14,par.760Thelossofsuchconnectionliesattheheartofthecollectivelossofthesenseofthesacredorenchantment,atermcurrentlybeingusedonthelist.Inthedialecticbetweeninnerandouterandegoandtheexternalthesymbolsofthesoulof

17theworldandtheoneworldbreakdownthefalsedichotomybetweeninsideandoutside.Theyrestontheexperienceoftheindividualasnativelyrelatedtothetotalitythroughtheontologicalstructureofthepsycheitselfandthattherecoveryofthepointofcoincidenceofindividualwiththetotalityisthepsychicbasisinformingtheexperienceofthesouloftheworldandtheoneworld.SoIdon'tthinkthatthesesymbolsarisefromprojectionbutfromtheexperientialrecoveryofthatdepthinthepsychewhichisthecommonoriginofconsciousness,natureandthesenseofGodmanifestinboth.RegardingHillmanIoftenwonderedwhyhedoesnotaddressthesymboloftheunusmundusandnevergoesbeyondtheprecedingstage,thatofthecaelum.AttheBarcelonaconferenceheamplifiedtheconceptionofcaelumasblueexhaustivelyandconcludedwithnoconclusion.Irealizehisthenunderstandingofdeconstructionismmayhaveforbiddenhimsayinganythingparticularbutincuttingofftheculminationofthealchemicalprocesspriortoitsuniversalismhedeprivesthecultureofwhatitnowneedsmost,asenseofthecommonoriginofalltheabsolutescurrentlypoisedtodestroythehumanitythroughwhichtheyarebornmuchasacancerdestroysthebodywhichgivesitbirth.Ithinkthenew"science"canalsobeadistraction.AdmittedlyJungdepictedhispsychologyasa"science"often.Hefrequentlypresentedhimselfasamerescientistwithoutmetaphysicalortheologicalintentbeforegoingontomakeblatantlymetaphysicalstatements.HeandFreudhadtobe"scientists"togainahearinginthefaceofthescientismoftheirtime.ThenewscientismhasshownitselfasincapableofassimilatingJung

18inhistotalityasdidtheolderversion.Jungknewhispsychologyinitsfurtherreachestoweredabovescienceasitselfamythandwasfrankinacknowledgingit.In1958hewritesoftheunusmunduswhichelsewhereherelatestothemandalaandsynchronicity,"Thisfar‐reachingspeculationisapsychicneedwhichispartofourmentalhygiene,butintherealmofscientificverificationitmustbecountedsheermythology."Letters2,p.449Jung'stheorizinginrealmswellbeyondhispsychometryismythology.Histherapyisahealingart.Tomakethenewsciencesomehowacombinationofmythandartwillneedatorturousandneedlessmanipulationoftheterm.WhynotabandontheefforttoreduceJungtothelevelofascientistandhispsychologytoscienceinfavourofanintensifiedresonancewiththemyththeunconsciouscurrentlysponsors.Animism,pantheismandIwouldsuspectakindofmonisminwhichthetotalcognitivepossibilityisrealizedascontainedintherelationofegototheunconsciousareallinvolvedintheemergingmyth.David,Ithinkyourpapermovesalongthiswayandthisisthewayitmovedme.Iremaingratefulforit.John'ThissaidIdepartsomewhatfromyourcontentionthatJungmovesfromtheneedtowithdrawprojectionstoanendorsementoftheminhisunderstandingofanimism.IthinkeveninhisYalelectureshewritesthatconsciousnessdemandsthewithdrawalofprojectionsandspecificallythosethatcreatetheGods,theirrevelationsandcommunalfaithinThembindingcommunitiestoOneorOtheroftheOneandOnliesinpatternsofnowtooevidentsocialhostility.'Thanks,Johnthisisreallyinteresting‐ithelpsmegetatsomethingiamworkingonrightnowvisavisWalterBenjaminandwhathemeansby'aura'‐isthisit,abit?:heiscritiquingculturalproducts(paintings,etc.)andthebackgroundisthatheworriestheircommodificationhasrenderedthemflat,without'aura'=aqualitythatiassociatewithanimism‐butthedifficultyiswheretoascribethissortoftranscendentallongevitytheymighthave,aprimordialpresence(hisword),thatisoutsidetime:isitafunctionoftheperceiverorisitaqualityoftheobject.

19thedifficultyisthatthereisnoobjectwithouta(orasheputsit,togazeatanOtheristoimplyortoexpectaresponse)‐soitisnotthecasethatapaintingorapieceofmusicnolongerhasan'aura'initself,itisthatinitsperception,thereisno'aura'‐butofcoursethereneveraren't'perceivors'‐therebyhedoesnotgiveuphope‐thereisachancetotrytodiscernwhattheprimordialobjectis,orhowitrelatestotheprimordial,andsotore‐alignwithitsoriginality.ofcourseihavenotgotitinallitscomplexities‐butdoesthiscorrelatetowhatyouaresaying?isthisaboutprojections?(itisalsothebeginningofhisargumentaboutdistinguishingbetweenphilosophyandtheology‐hediscussestimefromthere.)iamtryingtoseetheramificationspsychologicallyhere.thanks,again,LeslieLeslie,Thewithdrawalofprojectionsmayindeedberelatedtothecapacitytoviewrealitywithacertainaura.WhatIamcontending‐IthinkwithJung‐isthatthewithdrawalofprojectionsandespeciallythosethatcreatetheGodsturnstheegotothepowerswithinthataretheauthorsofsuchprojections.Totheextentthattheseinnerpowersbecomeconsciousdivinityisremovedfromitslocationintheskiesandbecomesthegroundofwhatis.Consciouscontactwiththatgroundenablesaperceptionofthedivineorsacredorultimateornuminous(whateveritbecalled)asaresidualcapacitynotlimitedtothisorthatexistentbutsimplytowhatis.Inthissensetheaurawouldinvadeone'ssurroundingsastheyexpresstheiruniversalorcommongroundasthesourceoftheauratransparentinthem.Contemporarydisenchantmentultimatelytracesbacktoalossofthesenseoftheinternaloriginoftheaura.Inthisthereductionofthehumancognitivecapacitytointellect,reason,ormindislargelyresponsible.Heretheunlikelycollusionofscienceandreligionareobstaclestotheaura.Theformerlivesawayfromitandrightlywithinitslegitimateambit.Thelatterprojectstheauraintotheskiesandsohaslostcontemporaryattentionandcredibility.Thankyouforyourcomments,JohnDearJohnandAll,Thankyouverymuchforyourfineemail.Iappreciateyoureffortsinthisregard.IalwaysliketojoustwithyouJohn,andwehavebeendoingitforyearsnow.IamsorryImissedyourpaperatMontreal,asatthetimeIwascaughtupinanothersessionbyDonaldKalsched.Inthisemail,Iwillsimplyrespondtoyourpointaboutprojectionandanimism(andreturntoyourotherpointslater).IwilldosomethingthatIsometimesfindirritatinginothers(now,surely,that'saprojection?),andthatistosplicemyresponsesinsideyourcomments.Youwrote:

20ThissaidIdepartsomewhatfromyourcontentionthatJungmovesfromtheneedtowithdrawprojectionstoanendorsementoftheminhisunderstandingofanimism.ThisisnotwhatImeanttosay,andifIdidsayit,Iamsorry.WhatImeanttosaywas:thewholeissueof"projections"becomesproblematisedbyJung'stheoryofsynchronicityandhislateinterestinalchemyandtheanimisticworldview.Itbecomesproblematisedbecause"psyche"isnolongerentirely"inhere",butisseenasquitelegitimately"outthere"aswell.IactuallythinkthatJungwasmovingtowardapositioninwhichtheoreticalphysicsandpsychologycometogetherandmeet.NotethequotefromJungthatwassenttothislistbyJoelWeishauson3October:"Nothing has ever been projected; that is a wrong conception really: the term projection is wrong. Such a psychological content always has been outside, it never was inside. A so-called projection is simply a thing which is discovered to be outside and then integrated by the discoverer with himself. Our psychology was all found outside, it never was in our pockets to begin with." C.G. Jung, "The Interpretation of Visions: V. Excerpts From the Notes of Mary Foote." Spring Journal, (1964).Actually,itwouldbegoodtogettheoriginaldateofthis,asdatesarevitalinJungianStudies‐:whendidhesayit?Itwasobviouslynot1964,ashediedin61.OfenormoussignificancetothisdiscussionisthisquotefromthebookeditedbyRobertSegal,JuneSingerandMurrayStein:Gilles Quispel reports that after Jung delivered his lecture on synchronicity at Eranos in 1951, Jung told him that ‘now the concept of projection should be revised completely’. from page 19, "The Allure of Gnosticism", Open Court, 1995. Mypoint,John,isthatthis"revision"ofthetheoryofprojectionneverreallytookplace,althoughJungcalledforitaslateas1951.Instead,wehavetwoseparateepistemologiesrunningside‐by‐sideinhiswork:oneabouttheefficientneedtowithdrawprojections,anotheraboutthefactthatobviously"all"projectionscannotbewithdrawnbecausethentherewouldbenobasisfortheexperienceofpsycheintheworld.AmItheonlyoneseeingthiscontradiction?No,Hillmansawitandhaswrittenatlengthaboutitinanumberofbooks.Waybackin1983Hillmanwrote:‘Theideaofprojection[is]oneofdepthpsychology’sdenialofthingsastheyaresoastomaintainitsviewoftheworld’.[i]<#_edn1>Hillmanclaimsprojectionisa‘defense’againstanimamundi,andassuchit‘needsreversing’.‘Whatpsychologyhashadtocall‘projection’issimplyanimation…[inwhich]thesoulofthethingcorrespondsorcoalesceswithours’.[ii]<#_edn2>[i]<#_ednref1>Hillman,AnimaMundi,p.99.[ii]<#_ednref2>Hilman,AnimaMundi.,p.102.

21NotethereisadifferenceherebetweenJungandHillman,Jungsaysitneeds"revising",Hillmansays,moreradically,itneeds"reversing".Butwhathashappened?Actuallynothingmuch,neitherrevisionnorreversalhasoccurredinourfield,asitseemstomemostofushavesidesteppedthisissue.IlovethatphrasefromHillman:thesoulofthethingcorrespondsorcoalesceswithours.Thisisonanotherlevel,entirely,totheCartesianprojectofwithdrawingprojectionsthatdominatesJungianpsychology.IagreewithHillman,andapplaudhiscourageintacklingthissacredcowofpsychotherapeuticpractice.Note:HeisNOTsayingthatsomeprojectionsdon'tneedtobewithdrawnintheaveragepsychotherapeuticsession.Ifyouhatesomeonewithagreatintensity,Hillmanwouldbethefirstonetorequestanintegrationofshadow.Heissaying,however,thatthenotionofcleaninguptheworldofallpsychicprojectionsisanerrorofourthinking,andifwegodownthatroad,weeventuallyloseallsenseofsoulintheworld,andtheimportanceofpsychicconnectionswithobjects,things,people(animism).HeisopposedtotheHerculeaneffortofcleaningupthestables,andremovingallpsychic"shit"fromtheworld,whichforHillmanistantamounttolosingsoulinthings.TosaythatJungorHillmanendorseallprojectionsisamisrepresentationoftheirposition.Theyaresayingthatprojectionshavetobeviewedthroughadifferentlensorparadigm,nowthatwehavediscovered,ormorecorrectly,recovered,thevitalimportanceofpsycheintheworld,andtheneedtoliveinananimateduniverse.Notallprojectionsoriginatefromthehumanself,butsomemustcometousfromoutside,asJungandHillmanputit.Perhapsitsabitlikedifferentiatingbetweenbigandlittledreams.Littledreamsareourpersonalconcernandneedtobe'integrated'intoconsciousness,butbigdreamscomefromthecollectivelayer,andwecannotexpectto"integrate"theminthesameefficientway,butrather,ourtaskistolearnfromthem,andregardthemasobjectiveandnotmerelysubjective.Iguessanotherparallelmightbetheshadow:thereispersonalshadowthatneedsintegrating,butcollectiveorarchetypalshadowthatneedsrespectingratherthanintegratingassuch.Doyouseemypoint?Wearetalkingaboutdifferentlevelsorlayersofpsychicexperience.Youwrote:IthinkeveninhisYalelectureshewritesthatconsciousnessdemandsthewithdrawalofprojectionsandspecificallythosethatcreatetheGods,theirrevelationsandcommunalfaithinThembindingcommunitiestoOneorOtheroftheOneandOnliesinpatternsofnowtooevidentsocialhostility.".everythingofadivineordaemoniccharacteroutsideusmustreturntothepsyche,totheinsideoftheunknownman,whenitapparentlyoriginated."CW11,par.105Yes,youareright.Hedoeshavethisaspect,thisepistemologyormethod.Butitiscontradictedbytheotherepistemology,whichcomesuplater.TheTerryLectureswere1937frommemory,anddon'tforget,JungdeliveredthemtoimpresstheleadinglightsofthedayatYale.Hewasnotgoingtotellthemthewholetruth,whichisthathedidnotfullybelievethislineofthought,noteventhen,whenhedeliveredit.Hewastailoringhisworktosuitthepurposeandcontext.Hedidnotwanttocomeacrossassomeeccentricmystic,butinthelineofHerculescleaningup

22thestables.However,evenintheYalelectures,Jungsoundedthiswarningandcautionarynote:Theindividualegoismuchtoosmall,itsbrainismuchtoofeeble,toincorporatealltheprojectionswithdrawnfromtheworld.Egoandbrainburstasunderintheeffort;thepsychiatristcallsitschizophrenia.ThiswasthecasewithNietzsche,theuncomprehendedportentofawholeepoch.(1938/40:145)Hereheindicatingthat"withdrawingprojections"isnotalwayssuchagreatidea.Infact,itcanbearecipeformadness.Lettheworldhaveitspsychiccontents,andletgodsremaingods,andnotreducethemtohumancontents.Whydowefeelobligedtoswallowthegodswhentheyneverdidcomefromoursubjectivedepths?Itisclearthatby1945andthen1951,Jungdidnotbelieve(anymore)thateverythingofadivineordemoniccharacteroriginatesoutsideusandmustbe"returned"tosubjectivity.Hefelt,onthecontrary,thatdivineanddemonicaspectswereintheworldsoul,andto"withdraw"themintothepersonalpsychewouldbe1)impossible,astheydidnotoriginatethere;2)likelytocreateterribleinflationifwithdrawn;and3)leavetheworldsoul‐lessifwithdrawn.Youwrote:Inthisspiritheextendstherecoveryofdivinitytohumannatureitself,contendsthattheChurchhassplitwhatnaturehasunited,thedivineandthehuman,andtermsa"systematicblindness"theideathatdivinityisbeyondthepsyche.CW11,par.100.InthiscontextthenaturalpantheismJungattributestothepsycheneednotbedismissedorfeared.InfactJungisexplicitthatitsnegationbythechurchhascontributedtothespiritualsterilityofcurrentculture.CW14,par.773Yes,butonceagain,youaretrackingoneaspectofJungandnottheother,withduerespect.IcanprovidejustasmanyquoteswhereJungissayingtheopposite:Manconquersnotonlynature,butspiritalso,withoutrealizingwhatheisdoing.Tothemanofenlightenedintellectitseemslikethecorrectionofafallacywhenherecognizesthatwhathetooktobespiritsissimplythehumanspiritandultimatelyhisownspirit.Allthesuperhumanthings,whethergoodorbad,thatformeragespredicatedofthedaimonia,arereducedto‘reasonable’proportionsasthoughtheywerepureexaggeration,andeverythingseemstobeinthebestpossibleorder.[i]<#_edn1>[i]<#_ednref1>Jung,‘ThePhenomenologyoftheSpiritinFairytales’(1945/1948),inCWVol.9,part1,para.454.Thenthereisthismajorquotation,whichdefinitelyarguesagainst"withdrawing"theseso‐called"projections"Theintegrationofthespiritmeansnothinglessthanitsdemonization,sincethesuper‐humanspiritualagenciesthatwereformerlytiedupinnatureareintrojected

23intohumannature,thusendowingitwithapowerwhichextendstheboundsofthepersonalityadinfinitum,inthemostperilousway.[i]<#_edn1>[i]<#_ednref1>Jung,‘ThePhenomenologyoftheSpirit’,para.454.Don'tforgetthatinsomeplaces,JungarguesthatNietzschewentmadpreciselybecausehe"withdrew"theso‐called'projections'ofGodorspiritintohimself,andthiscausedhispsychetoexplode.Therearesomepsychiccontentswhichareclearlytoolargetobewithdrawn,andthelargeonesarelikebigfishwhichwillcapsizetheboatifwearenaiveenoughtothinktheycanbeintegratedintoourselves.SowhileIagreewithmuchofwhatyouwriteindisagreementwithmythesis,Iwouldarguethatthereare(atleast)twoJungsinthecollectedworks,andthesestrandsbattlefordominanceinhispsychologicalsystem.Asithappens,theCartesianJunghaswonthedayinthesystematisedpsychologythatoperatesunderhisname.ThisissocomprehensivethatHillmanfelttheneedtocreateaseparate,thoughrelatedtraditioncalled"archetypalpsychology"tohouseandreclaimtheJungwhohadbeenlost.Iguessmyargumentisthatweneedtobringthesetwopsychologies,analyticalandarchetypal,together,sothattheycanbenefitfromthefruitsofdialogueandconversation.Personally,Iusedtoconstructmyselfasmorearchetypalthananalytical,butnowIseeksomethingdifferent,whichistobringbackthepost‐CartesianepistemologywhichispresentinJungbutnotsomuchinJungians.Iwouldbegratefulforyourresponsetothesepoints,whicharevitallyimportanttomeatthemoment.Sotoo:anyoneelsewhoisfollowingthislineofthought,pleasejumpinandsaysomething.bestwishes,DavidDavid,Thanksforyourextendedreply.WithqualificationsIwouldgrantthattherearediverseepistemologiesinhiswritingasJungmaturedandhispsychologywithhim.Thefollowingisunrankedbutmaybebetterforgettingattheissue.EpistemologyIwouldprefernottocallthisepistemologyCartesian.Descarte'ssubjectivitywasconfinedtoreasonandthinking.Jung'ssubjectivityneverwasatanystageofhisdevelopment.Howevertherearepassagesinwhichhewilltalkofthesubjectivepsycheasrelatingtowhatamountstoanoutsideworld.IthinkthisisapreliminaryepistemologytotheepistemologyevidentinhisalchemicalworksandinhisAnswertoJob,thoughIhaveindicateditispresentatleastasearlyashisYalelectures.ThispreliminaryepistemologywouldtoleratethemodelofasubjectorpsychelookingoutonanobjectmuchasDescartesmightunderstandarationalsubjectlookingatanobject.....anoutstandingexampleofwhichwouldbeGodastheultimateguarantorofreason.

24EpistemologyII.Inthisepistemologytheperceptionofsuchuniversalstrataofrealitycapturedinthesymbolsoftheanimamundiandunusmundusimplythatsuchconsciousnessisonlypossibleifone'ssoulorpsycheisreconnectedwiththeuniversalstructureofthedeeperpsycheandthroughthisinnerconnectionisrelatedtorealitybeyonditselfinthe"outsideworld".Itmustbesaidinthisepistemologytheremaybenooutsideworldsincethepsycheisallencompassingthroughitsroleasgroundingconsciousnessandeventhesensorium.ThisepistemologyisincompatiblewithanyformofAristotelianlogicorthoughtandhasitsrootsinPlatonismthisdynamicinformsanimism.Butthecrucialpointhereisthattheperceptionofthesouloftheworldortheunusmundusimpliesandrestsupontheconnectionofconsciousnesswithitsuniversalgroundenablingheperceptionofwhatisasajointexpressionofegoandthebeyond.WhatIfearisthatthisinnerconnectionasthekeytotheoutconnectionisbeinglostinJungiantheoryandpossiblyinpractice.Withoutthisinteriority,whichbreaksthesubject/objectdichotomy,andalsoinforms,attimesdangerously,theparticipationmystiqueandmanyformofmysticismtheuniversalsenseislost;theonlyalternativeisaregressiontoCartesianepistemologyInsubstanceIamsayingthatyourunderstandingoftheanimamundiisaformofwhatyoucallCartesianepistemology.AsregardsHillmanIwouldreiteratethathistruncationofthealchemicalprocessatthelevelofcaelumdeniesthepoweroftheunusmundusatthegroundorlatencyofthesenseoftheuniversalwhichhasgivenrisetoallreligionandanalogousabsolutesinpoliticalandculturallifeandwouldbeavaluable,ifnotthefinal,resourceinturninghumanityawayfromthethreatofkillingitselfforthetruth.IthinkthatJunghadsuchascenarioinmindwhenhecautionedtowardtheendthatifhumanitydidnot"...workoutthewayofsalvationbyasymbolicdeath..."(lossofitscurrentreligiousconfigurations)itfacedthelikelihoodofa"universalgenocide."CW18,par,1661.Thesuggestionoftheuniversalismimplicitinanimisticconsciousnessishelpfulinevadingsuchanoutcome.ThisiswhyIthinkyourpaperisimportantbutmayneedtotranscenditsownCartesianconclusion.Again,David,manythanksfortheopportunitytoexercisethesequestion.Sincerely,JohnDearDavidTacey,I'dliketothankyouforyoursuccinctandasusual,well‐arguedpaper.It'sgoodtohaveyourinputagainonthelist.Asyouknow,mywayofthinking,whichmaybebroadlydescribedasOrthodoxChristian,doesn'tmatchthatofmostlistmembers,soIadmitthatIreadeverythingfromthispointofview,andfindmyselfnaturallydrawntocertainperspectivesmorethanothers.

25IsupposeitcomesasnosurprisethatIthinkyou(andHillman)areontosomethinginyourdifferentapproachtoprojection,inyourlocationofpsycheinthecosmosasmuchasinman.And,havingheardthedoctrineof(needingtowithdraw)projectionsrepeatedinchant‐likemanneronthislist,itisrefreshingtoseethatsomeoneiscapableoftranscendingthisprejudice,andindeedreadingJungagaininawaywhichdoesnotnecessarilytowthedominantpsychotherapeutic/solipsisticpartyline.Iagree,too,withyourcomparisonofcertainsubjectiveprojectionsto'littledreams',sinceclearlytheconceptofprojectionisusefulpsychotherapeuticallyforsortingoutself(lowercase's')fromother,butisquiteinappropriatewhenitis,erm,projectedontothecosmosatlarge.Hence,too,'withdrawing'a'projection'ormorecorrectlyacontentofconsciousnessfromthecosmosintothepsychemaywellleadtomadness,eitherasschizophreniaortheinflationandprideofpeoplewhoimaginethey'vekilledGod,likeRichardDawkinsorStephenHawking,orevenreallybrightandcreativeoneslikeNietzsche.Thewaterisbothinsidethefish,andaroundit.Idon'tagreewiththenotionofanimismasatheologicalproposal(thoughI'mnotsuggestingyourpaperwasmeantassuch),butforme,IcangladlyreportasDanielandotherssurelycan,thewholematerialuniverseisteemingwithlife,muchmoreofitthanI'vedetectedinmanyprofessionals.IfImayuseatheologicalanalogy,inaprayertotheHolySpiritwesay"Thouarteverywhereandfillestallthings".Soonceagain,manythanksforyourpaperandtheseminar,Ihopethatyourthinkingcontinuesdownthiscreativeandinnovativepath.IalsohopeyouwillreviseHillman'sprejudiceagainstChristianityandtheChurchFathersatsomepoint,becausefarfrombeingthesourceofdualismasMarksuggests,JesustheGod‐manastheIncarnationoftheLogosistheresolutionofalldualism,andalsoseemstometofitneithertheTyloriandefinitionof'primitiveanimism',northatof'modernanimism'.ButfortunatelysuchissuesarebiggerthanIcanultimatelyhandle,andI'llthereforesaynomoreonit,leavingittosuperiorintellectstoputthesethingsintowords.Bestregards,Byronifanexperiencetakesaformthatissolikesomethingelse,howtotellthedifference?iamwonderingaboutyourcomment,mark,thatuncanninessaccompaniestechnologyinawaythatissimilar,yetdifferent,tonuminosity(doesnuminosityoccuronlywhensomeformofreligionispresent?)Marie‐LaureRyan(inherpiece'Immersionvs.interactivity:virtualrealityandliterarytheory'1994PMCvol.51)talksaboutthedistinctions(ornot)oftheexperienceoftotalimmersioninvideogamesoveragainstthe'ordinary'experienceofreadinganovelwhichisalsocompletelyengrossing.itisthemediumoftheexperience,theheadsetsorthefeelofabookinyourhand,orthepresenceoftheedgesofthecomputerscreenthataresomehowboththeboundariesandthegatewaystoanexperiencethatistransporting,isthatwhatthe

26disenchantmentcontraststo?akindofflatnessorakindofliteralness?alltoocanny...?samuelweberinhisexaminationofFreud'sessayontheuncannyhasthistosaythatmayworkinhereaboutthemixofsubjectiveandobjective‐technologyandfeeling‐'itisquiteanothermattertoassumethattheuncannyisessentiallyorexclusivelyanemotivephenomenon...suchapositionmisconstruesthepeculiarstructureoftheuncanny,or,moreprecisely,ignoresthefactthattheuncannyhasaparticularstructurewhichhoweverintimatelyboundupwithsubjectivefeelings...isnonethelessdeterminedbyaseriesof'objective'factorsthatinturnstandinacertainrelationtodiscourse.'(thisisfromWeber'spiece'Thesideshow,or:remarksonacannymoment'inMLNvol88no.6(1973).itisthatshift,thatshimmer,whensomethingfamiliarissomehowlacedwithanxiety,thattellsussomethingisnotright,andthatisthetouchstoneoftheuncanny.isanimismlocatedinheretoo?yettotalimmersionviatechnologicaloranyothermeans,makestherulesandconstraintsofthatother'place'veryfamiliar,veryathome.sothisanimatedmatterisnotthemessageitselfbutthegateway,theborderlands,boundaries.iguesswhatiamtryingtogetatisthenuminosityanduncanninessmightperhapsbeachieved(ifitissomethingtoachieveatall‐andidobelievethatanartistcancreateandthengetlostinherowncreation,actually)comesoutbeingthesamething.itisalwayshardformetobelievethatweactuallyhavedifferentinteriorexperiencesinresponsetowhatmightbeverydifferentstimuli‐oursynapsesandfingertipsarethesameasancientspeoples'were‐soourvisceralexperience‐acomponent,afterall,ofnuminosityoruncannyreactions,arethesame.howwegettheremightbedifferent,isuppose.andyouwantustoholdthesetwonotionstogether,ithink,mark.yours,LeslieIdon’tseeenchantmentasparticulartothe‘newanimism’Davidisreferringto.Undertheinfluenceofacomplexwebecomeenchanted.Whenisitapersonalcomplexandwhenisitcultural?IassociatethenewanimismDavidisidentifyingmoretoaculturalcomplex(Singer,Kimbles)rootedinoneoftheculturalattitudesHendersonidentifiedasa‘religiousattitude’.OneofDavid’scontributionshasbeen,throughmyownlens,athoroughJungianperspectiveonhowreligiousattitudesarefindingnewhomes,nowwithnewanimismaprojectionontonature.Technologythenbegins,inthecourseofthediscussionsofar,tobetheantimonial(perhapsevenantinomialinalchemcialterms)substance.Myquestioniswhatthen,inlightofthisnewanimismistheirrationalthird?ThomasSingerpostedon14May2009“IthinkDavidhitsthenailontheheadwhenhetalksaboutlearningto“internalize”thenotionofaculturalcomplex.Itgoestotheessenceofvalue/usetous‐andthisistruenotjustabut‘culturalcomplexes’butanytheoryor‘technical’wordthatweuse.Theydon’treallymeananythingunlesstheybecomepartofusinarealandinnerway.”Tomgoesontosupportaquestion

27Davidhadraisedatthattimetodowithhowwerecognizeoridentifywhatisaculturalcomplexandwhenitissimplya“problem”.SoasDavidisbackforthetimebeing,itseemsagoodideatoaskifthe“newanimism”isasymptomofaculturalcomplexorisitthecomplexitself?Again,drawingfromSinger’spost,toprecisandquote:isthereanunconsciousaffectiveforcethatunderliesthe‘problem’?Doesitpresentwithabigdoseofcollectiveemotion?(theflyingsaucers,eg)doestheproblemseemtohavealifeofitswon–isitautonomous?doesitrecurovertimeinsuchawaythatitgainsahistoryandselectivememoryofitsownthatbecomesself‐fullfiling?Isitrepetitious?doesithaveasetofrelativelysimplisticbeliefsandideas,(thatare)alsorepetitiveandtendtoreduceproblemstosimplisticandformulaicorstereotypicalideas?doestheproblemseemtobehighlyresistanttobecomingmoreconsciousofitself?isittriggeredbywordsorphrasesthatleadtopowerfulaffect,somewhatlikesteppingonalandmine?BythewayIalsocouldhavegonedownarouteofresponsetoMarkandLeslie’spostinconsiderationofRogerBrooke’spaper(JAP36, 4, 1991, 505-518) ‘Psychiccomplexityandhumanexistence’,butasMarkismorestudiedonMerleau‐PontythanIam,I’mhopingeitherheorRogerwillbringsomeofthistobearonthe‘newanimism’.ThankstoLeslie,Dan,Mark,DavidandThomasSingerandhopefully,RogerBrooke.Bestwishes,Maryannthanksforyourposting,maryannofoctober2‐ithelpstocontextualiseDavid'spaper‐ihavenotbeensurewhat'animism'isandiseethatyousuggesthemeansitislocatedinaculturaldimension,inasub‐division,asitwere,ofreligion??ihavebeenthinkingofitinabroaderway,asradioactivematter,animatedmatter.perhapsitismeantinamorespecificcontext?yours,leslieHiLeslie,InDavid’spaperanimisminvolvesprojection,infactoneoftheimplicationsisthatAnalyticalPsychologywouldhaveusdoawaywithprojections.Ireadanimismasseeingintotheinanimatesomethingmorethatmaycrossovertowardthenuminous.Thereisathreadinthisconversationnow,thankstoJoel,onaquotefromJungthatbegins,“Nothinghaseverbeenprojected...”(seeJoel’spost10/3).David’spaperispickinguponapostCartesianshift,‘curve’inJung’spsychologythatquestionswhetherAnalyticalPsychologistshaveturnedtheirbackon.Broadlyspeakingweareintherealmoftheanimamundi.WhenIsaidbelowIdon’tseeenchantmentasparticulartothe‘newanimism’whatIshouldhavesaidwaslimitedtothenewanimism.WithinthisnewanimismIseeaplacetoexplorecomplexesinpersonalandculturaldimensions,possession,spirits.(LucyHuskinsonhaswrittenbrilliantlyonspiritpossession).ThecurveDavidispickingupon,asIreadit(whichmaynotbewhat

28anyoneelsereadsintoit)isaboutJung’sshifttowardcultureandcosmos.AtthemomentIamfindingcosmosintheculturalmanifestation.ThisiswhereIbroughtinHenderson’sreligiousattitudeaspartofwhatbecameknownasaculturalcomplex.Anotherwayoflookingatanimamundi,andanimism.Perhapsforsomethisamplificationisabridgetoofar.Iknownothingaboutradioactivematterbutifyouseeany,stayclearofit.Yours,MaryannDearAll,Ijustwantedtoleteveryoneknowthatacomputersearchonthesubject"NewAnimism"inmyLaTrobeUniversitylibrary,yields2,565results.IfurthernoticethatnoneoftheseentriesincludereferencestoJungianpsychologies.These2,565resultsincludeentirebookswrittenonnewanimism,aswellasmanyarticles,essaysandindividualchaptersineditedvolumes.Thefieldisquiteenormous,andlet'snotimaginethatitislimitedtoourownfield(s).YesMaryann,thisdiscussionprobablydoesrelatetoLucyHuskinsononspiritpossession,butIhavenotyetreadorseenherrecentbookonthistopic.Waitingforthelibrarytogetit,orforsomeonetosendmeareviewcopy(!).Afewmonthsago,theAnthropologyandSociologydepartmentsofmyuniversityheldaninternationalseminaronTheNewAnimism.Itwaspackedwithdelegates,andincrediblyinterestingfromaJungianand/orArchetypalpointofview,butnoneofthediscussantsoraudiencememberswereintheslightestbitawareofparalleldevelopmentsinAnalyticalandArchetypalPsychology.Wesorarelygetontheradarofleading‐edgeuniversitydiscussions,unfortunately.Bytheway,IexplorethisprobleminachapterofaforthcomingbookwithOUPNewYork,onTeachingJungintheUniversity,whichwillappearnextyear.RobertSegal,MurrayStein,SusanRowland,JohnDourleyandDavidMillerareinthesamevolume.bestwishes,DavidDearDavidandAll,IwasremissnottoincludeafullreferenceonLucy’snewbookandthechapterinitI’vebeenreferringto:Huskinson,L.(2010)“AnalyticalPsychologyandSpiritPossession:TowardsaNon‐PathologicalDiagnosisofSpiritPossession”inB.E.SchmidtandL.Huskinson(Eds.)SpiritPossessionandTrance:NewInterdisciplinaryPerspectivesContinuousAdvancesinReligiousStudiesLondonandNewYork:Continuum

29ThanksDavidforacknowledgingtheprobablelinktospiritpossessionI’vereportedon,whichLucytacklessowellinadvancingthesubjectofcomplexes.NewAnimismappearstobenomoreownedbyaJungianPsychologythannotionsofculture,butaseverinJungianStudieswebringanotherdimensiontothefield.WhilewemaynothavetimetocoverallthedimensionsofnewanimisminthisseminarIwouldliketocontinuetoinvitecontributionsthattaketheirinspirationfromDavid’sexcellentpaperandseminar.Bestwishes,MaryannBut spirit possession is 'old' animism... The field is even larger, for arguably there's a truly new animism in late-modernity. My point links to this list's earlier thread apropos modernity and disenchantment. This new animism seems hidden in taking hi-tech for granted. We're surrounded by hi-tech, live within it; and it's like a mysterious force of nature - not because you or I don't have a degree in computers, but because of the subtle ways in which the technology (email, mobile phones, etc., Twitter, Facebook, YouTube...) profoundly influences everyday existence in our society whether we personally use it or not. It has a life of its own. I can't claim originality to that idea. It's explored in an excellent book by R. L. Rutsky, "High Techne: Art and technology from the machine aesthetic to the posthuman" (University of Minnesota, 1999). With a reference to Weber's modernity+disenchatment, he posits that the 'machine aesthetic' is a new enchantment. He also proposes and explores what he calls the 'technological unconscious', to do with how we are collectively accultrated into seeing the world through technology and into seeing technology in particular ways (notably in sci-fi). No mention of Jung there, but if you read it I'm sure you could see numerous links - e.g., Jung's UFO essay. The 'technological unconscious' notion lends itself to a comparison with 'cultural complex'. Cheers, RayaIdon’tthinkspiritpossessionbelongstoeitherneworoldanimism,astoseethe“spirit”intheinanimatecanrunalongacontinuumbetweenmattersoffaiththroughtoinsanity,dependingonthecultureinwhichitoccurs.Iftheegoisfloodedoroverwhelmedtheclinicalperspectiveasa‘culture’willviewitoneway,ifithappensinLourdesorFatimathecontentofthepossessionmaybeviewedasamanifestationofthedivine.AnalyticalPsychologyisuniquelyequippedtoconsiderthisspectrum.InDavid’slonger8,000wordpaper,whichhehasinviteddiscussantstorequestofflist,hegoesintomoredetailonhowwhereandhowAPgoeswithJung’s‘swerve’tocosmosandcultureandwhereitdoesn’t.

30OneofthemanyinterestingthreadsIseeinthisseminaristhewayinwhichthatolddeviltechnologykeepscomingupasifa‘forceofnature’(backtonature?)withinnewanimism.ThankyouforyourcomparisonofRutsky’s‘technologicalunconscious’toaculturalcomplex.Thoughnotstrictlyspeakinganexampleofthenuminous,itisrightuptherewithotherfineapplicationsofanalyticalpsychologyoninter‐disciplinarysubjectstheIAJShasbecomeknownfor.Best,MaryannDearAll,Ifinditinterestinghowthefocusofthisconversationsofarhasbeenlanguage.Ihavemixedfeelingsaboutthis.Certainly,languageisimportant.AndDavid'schoicetousetermslike"enchantment/disenchantment/re‐enchantment"and"newanimism"doesdemandthatwemakeanattempttofigureoutwhathemeantbytheseterms.IsharemanyofMark'sconcerns(expressedinhis10/2post)regardingthepossibilitythatthethreestagesofthedevelopmentofhumanthoughtDavidenlistsspringfroma"modernistfantasy".Andyet,mygutgrumblesatthepossibilitythatwewouldgetboggeddownintheabsolutedeconstructionofDavid'sargument/provocation,finishinginegg‐headednihilismwhere,asBobDylanoncesang:"Nothingwasdelivered<http://www.bobdylan.com/#/songs/nothing‐was‐delivered>".Forinstance,althoughitisacampaignbuttonsloganofpostmodernistrhetorictocallsomethinga"modernistfantasy",Ihavetoasktheignorantperson's(perhapsalso"wise")question:whatpartofthelifeweknowandhaveknownandcanreconstructfromtheartifactsofthehistoricaleraisnota"modernistfantasy"?Thisfantasydatesbacktoourearliestwritings,storiesofFallintheBibleandelsewhere,theEpicofGilgamesh,etc.Thesetales(intheoraltraditions)probablydatebacktobeforetheBronzeageanddrawontheradicalshiftsinhumanculturegeneratedbyagriculture.Andifthe"modernistfantasy"hasbeenwithhumanculturefromthattimetothepresent,howmuchisreallyachievedbyevokingitasacriticism?Additionally,Iamoneofthosetroglodyteswhoremainsunconvincedthatpostmodernismhasachievedanythinglikeatranscendenceof,orevenaremovalfrom,modernism.Themystiqueofpostmodernismseemstobeprimarilypropagandatome.Thatis,itdoesnotmanageto"treat"theconditionofmodernism.Itonly(atbest)illuminatesmodernism'sarbitrariness(andmodernismisnotuniqueinbeingarbitrary).Butadolescent(or"puer")cultureilluminatesthearbitrarinessofadultcultureineveryera.Partofthegettingonwith(orinitiationinto)adulthoodinvolves,notablindignoranceofculturalarbitrariness,butakindofself‐sacrificingacceptancethatsomeofthisarbitrarinessmustbeembracedifoneistorelateresponsiblytoothers,tofamily,andtocommunity."Embrace"hereneednotmeanbelief,andthisispartofthetenuousnessofadultresponsibility,atenuousnessthatdemandsasophisticatedethicalconsciousnesstoarbitrateit.

31MarkalsomakesanotherclaimthatneedstobecontrastedwithDavid'sclaimthat"Postmodernsciencewillleadusintoanewkindofanimism".Marksays:modernityisandalwayshasbeenthoroughlyenchanted,andthoughthisenchantmenthasremainedhitherto,forvariousreasons,mostlyhidden,nonethelessinrecentyears,inthelightofapost‐modernperspectiveonmodernity,ithasbecomemorevisibleasenchantment,thoughincharacteristicallymodernforms.Ofcourse,eitherclaimiscomplexandhighlydebatable.Butifmodernity"isandalwayshasbeenthoroughlyenchanted",howdoesthisrelatetothefactthatmoderndisenchantmentorFallhasbeenaconsistentmodernmythorfantasythroughoutallmodernity(i.e.,atleasttheentirehistoricalera)?Also,Ithinkitisquitepossiblethatmany(perhapsevenmost)modernsdon'tfeelanymoreorlessdisenchantedthanpremodernortribalpeoples.Disenchantmentislargelyaconcernofthosemodernswholeantowardromanticism(likeJungians).Questiontoaskforthoseofusofromanticpersuasionarewhatisitreallythatismissing...andwhy?InthequotefromMarkabove,anotherimportantcontrastwithDavid'sclaimneedstobeilluminated.Markattributesincreasedawarenessandpresenceofenchantment"inrecentyears"to"apost‐modernperspectiveonmodernity".ButDavidclearlystatesthat"postmodernscience"willleadtore‐enchantment/newanimism.Ofthetwoclaims,IwouldarguethatDavid'sissubstantiallymoreradicalandoriginal.Postmodernistshavebeenclaimingspecialinsightfordecades,butreactiontotheseclaimshasbeenseverelydivided.Onecontingentofcontemporarythinkersgenerallynotpersuadedbysuchpostmodernistbraggadociowouldbescientists(orperhapsnaturalistsingeneral).Davidstateshisbeliefthattheanimating/re‐enchantingfactorwillbe"natural"...andthatdoesnotseemtometobecompatiblewitha"post‐modernperspectiveonthemodern".I'vewrittenanotherreplytoDavid'spaperthatIhaven'tsentyet(andmaynot)thatdealsmoreextensivelywiththisissue,soIwon'tgointoitfurtherhere.ButIwillsaythatwhetherwelabelthemmodernistandpostmodernistorwhathaveyou,wehavetwocontrastingfantasiesthatdeserveequivalentdeconstructionandanalysis.ImplicitinMark's"postmodernistfantasy"isakindofdeclarationthat"theKingdomofHeaven(i.e.,enchantment)isathand",atleastforthoseilluminatedby"post‐modernperspective".David's"modernistfantasy"isnotso"alwaysalready",butisonthecuspofbeingborn(or,equallyperhaps,ofbeinglostormissed).Idon'tthinkDavid's"newanimism"isathingthereonlyforthose"whohaveeyestosee".Andinthissense,that"newanimism"bearsacloserresemblancetopremodernanimism/enchantment(regardlessofwhetherornotthisconditionwasasabsoluteasLevy‐BruhlorJungimaginedittobe)thanitdoestosomethinglikeChristian(orotherculticorreligious)salvation.Jeromewrote(10/2):"traditional"natives(whohavenotbeenoverlyindoctrinatedwithawesternbinarypointofview),whatwecallaweisverymuchpartoftheirexperienceonaday‐to‐

32daybasis.Theirexperienceofitandthewaytheymightormightnotarticulateitwouldbedifferent,butitisthere.Forthemaweisnotawesterninventionoraprojectionfromanypointofview.Itisinherentinlifeitselfandso,aswewouldsayinonesense,"mundane,"forthemisalwaysawe‐inspiring.This"awe"Jeromementionsisnotjustforthechosenfew.Itisbothmundaneandsublime/enchanted.ItakeDavid'sclaimthat"postmodernsciencewillleadusintoanewkindofanimism"tosuggestthatthis"newanimism"wouldbebothsublimeandmundaneandwouldnotbebasedonanyspecificlensoridentityaffiliation.MypointisthatinapproachingthesubjectmatterofDavid'spaper,yeswemusttrytodefineanddebatethedefinitionofsometerms,butwemustalsowrestlewithsomeinterestingandpotentiallyradicalcontentions.IwouldhatetoseeadiscussionoflanguageservetheavoidanceofdeeperreckoningswithDavid'sprimarycontentions.Specifically,ifitistobe"postmodernscience"thatre‐enchantstheworld,thisstandstoclashmightilywithprevailingpostmodernistperspectivesthathavebeendecidedlyanti‐science.Moreover,Jungianism(especially"post‐Jungianism")hasbeenmorereceptivetopostmodernistideasandinfluencesthanithastoscience.SoDavid'sprovocationcarriesadditionalimpact,andperhapsthreat,foraJungianaudience.Thatisthetopicofmypotentiallyforthcomingpost.Solet'saskwhatisanimism,whatis"newanimism",whatareenchantmentanddisenchantmentandre‐enchantment,whatispostmodernscience?Butlet'snotgettoolostinchalkingeverythinguptoaculturalconstruction,complex,orfantasyandforgettowrestlewiththeimplicationsofDavid'sargument.Iamnotadversetoconsideringmodernismaculturalcomplex(IhaveafterallrepeatedlyarguedonthislistthatpostmodernismandJungianismarebasedinculturalcomplexes)...butlikeanypsychologicalcomplexanindividual(withorwithoutapsychotherapisttoassist)mighthavetocontendwith,callingitafantasydoesnotamounttoaneffectivetreatmentofthecomplex.ItisinthetraditionofJungtotreatthepsycheasrealandtoreckonwithpsychicreality,evenifthisrequiressomeindulgenceintransferenceoracceptanceofmutual,arbitrary"fantasies"asbridgesbetweenindividualsandconduitsforhealingandtransformation.Apersonalcomplexcanbeseenasanemergentlanguageinwhichadeeper,morecomplex,andlesstangibleissueallowsitselftobetalkedabout.Psychotherapy(and/orindividuation),atleastintheJungiantradition,strivestorecognize,seizeontoanddevelopthisemergentlanguage...tocontinuethestorytherapeuticallytowardincreasedrobustness(andawayfromrepetitioncompulsion),tobumptheskippingphonographneedlebackintoagroovewherethesongcanplayout(let'snotforgetinthedigitalagethatthepathofthephonographneedleisaninwardspiral).ThechallengeinfacingDavid'sessayismuchlikethechallengepatientandanalystfaceinananalysis.Itdoesn'tmatterwhetherthefantasyisrightorwrong,falseortrue.Whatmattersishowitsarbitraryconstructionsmightbeusedtolanguagesomethingcomplex,emergent,andessentialtomodernpsychologicallife.Thelanguageofthefantasyisrevisedandrefinedalongtheway,butsomeeffort(a"therapeuticeffort")needstobemadeinordertounderstandwhatisbeingexpressed.

33Obviously,"newanimism"and"re‐enchantment"remainasyetun‐,oratleastinadequately,defined.ButIcontendthatthesethingscannotbeadequatelydefineduntilweventureintothestory(anditscentralconflict)morethoroughly.Wehavenomeansyettodefinetheseterms.Postmodernism,Jungianism,andsciencedonothavereadymadedefinitionswecanadopt.Davidsuggeststhatpostmodernsciencemaybedevelopingthelanguageanddefinitionweneed(albeit"unwittingly",whichisallthemoreintriguing).I'dliketoseewhatwouldhappenifweactuallywalkedintheseshoesbeforerejectingthem.Best,MattDearMatt,RegardingDavid’sidentificationofa‘newanimism’yourquestion“whatisitreallythatismissing...andwhy?”isagoodoneandIwouldadd...inthepersonalandcollectiveculture.WhydoIgetthefeelingJunghasbeendowntheroadofansweringthisquestionbeforeandcameupwithalackofritualsinthecultureandfaithinorganizedreligion.You,asDavidhaspreviously,maybesuspiciousofthejargonofacomplex’,culturalorpersonal,butyourlanguagebelowalso‘flirts’withthewordcomplex.Withoutknowingtheobjectofaprojectionitisimpossibletojudgesomeoftheseimponderables.Buttoexplorethroughspecificsinstancesoflookingatthesea/notlookingatthesea,oruptothesky,beginstohelpwithunderstandingwherethisnewanimismcomesfrom.Andifthereis‘possession’aboutit,itmaybenobadthing.Weneedourcomplexestoshowustheanswerstoyourquestionabove.Theycanonlydothatifwe’rewillingtoholdthembywhatevernominativeclueswefind.Icantellyoutheintentionbehindthisinauguralseminar,andallthoseintheIssuesinJungianPsychologySeries,istowalkintotheforest,handinhandwiththeauthors.Thankyouforyourprovocativeandinsightfulpost.Bestwishes,MaryannDearMattMuchofwhatyousayis,asusual,perspicaciousandthought‐provoking.However,Iwouldliketobrieflyattempttoclearupthewaysinwhichmyargument(andmorebroadlythepost‐modernperspective)differsfromyourrepresentationofit.First–fantasies.“ThechallengeinfacingDavid'sessayismuchlikethechallengepatientandanalystfaceinananalysis.Itdoesn'tmatterwhetherthefantasyisrightorwrong,falseortrue.Whatmattersishowitsarbitraryconstructionsmightbeusedtolanguagesomethingcomplex,emergent,andessentialtomodernpsychologicallife.”Iagree.However,youomittomentionthatbeforethefantasycanbeengagedwiththerapeuticallyinthewayyoudescribe,itisnecessaryforthefantasytoberecognisedasfantasy.Solongasthepatientinsiststhathermotheris,

34infact,anevilwitch,onlysomuchtransformativepsychologicalworkthatcanbedone.Theimportantshifthappenswhenthis‘fact’isseenthroughasfantasy.MyaiminmycommentsonDavid’spostwastosuggestthattheenchantment/disenchantmentnarrativewasnotahistoricalfactbutafantasy.Onceitisseenthroughasfantasywecanbegintoworkwithitpsychologicallybecausethismovebreaksusoutofliteralism.Inthiscaseitisfarfrombeingatriviallylinguisticpointbecauseitbreaksusoutoftheideathattherewasliterallyonceatimewhenwewereenchanted,andthenanothertimewhenweweredisenchanted,butifwedotherightthingstherewillbeyetanothertimewhenwecanbecomere‐enchanted:past‐present‐future.Oncewehavebrokenoutifthisliteralnarrativewecanentertainallkindsofcreativepossibilities.Asyousay,itisaperennialfantasy.Hesiodtellsusthattherewasonceanenchantedageofgold,andblissitwasinthatdawntobealive,butitgavewaytoanageofsilver,theageofheroes,andwenow(c.700BC)inhabitthedisenchantedageofiron,nastybrutishandshort.PerhapsmorerelevantisthestoryofPhilemonandBaucis,setinadisenchantedtimewhenmosthaveforgottenorturnedtheirbackonthegods.Butinthisstorythegodshavenotdied,theenchantmentisstillthere,solongas,likePhilemonandBaucisyoucanfinditinyourheartoofferithospitality,andwhenyoudoso,saysthemyth,thewholeworldistransformed.Butthepointisthatitwasthereallthetime,inthemidstof‘modernity’forthosewitheyestoseeit,andforthemtheworldwas/isalwaysalreadytransformed.Mypointisthatwhatour‘modernity’isaboutistheawkwardanduncomfortablefactthatweasmodernsareenchantedanddisenchantedatthesametime,andindeedthatthatiswhatparticularlycharacterisesmodernity.Jung’spsychology,growingasitdoesoutofhisuncomfortableawarenessthatheisbothpersonalityoneandtwo(enchantedanddisenchanted),iswellsuitedtoengagingwiththedualitythatcutsrightthroughmodernity,whileZizek’s(andLacan’s)resolutelydisenchantedpsychology,byrefusingtoallowfortheenchantedaspectonlyengageswithoneaspectofit.Youhaveharshwordsforpostmodernism.Itwouldbeabsurdformetotrytodefendpostmodernismtoutcourt.Thetermcoversamultitudeofattitudesandagendas.WhenIinvoketheworld,ImeanmostlyDerrideandeconstruction.AsIunderstandit,Derridaisnotattemptinganadolescentprovocationinthefaceofhiseldersandbetters,butadestabilisationofsedimentedideaswiththeaimofkeepingthinkingfreshandalive.Thedeconstructivemoveiscritical,butnotinthesensethatitattemptstoknockdownordisproveanargument.WhenDerrida,forexample,deconstructsLevi‐Strauss’sstructuralism,orLevinas’TotalityandInfinity,hedoessowithenormousrespect,andtheeffectistoopenouttheargument.Farfromobliteratingtheirthinking,itservestorevealLevi‐StraussandLevinasinamuchwiderandmorefluidperspective,untetheredtototalisingessentialistassumptions.So,inthiscase,myaimisnottoshowhowDavidiswrong,buttocomplexifythepicture.IfItrytorevealthewaysinwhichanimistculturesarenotsimplyenchanted,andthewaysinwhichourmoderncultureisnotsimplydisenchanted,IdosonotinordertoscorepointsoffDavidandhisargument,buttoaddadifferentdimensiontoanissuewhichItakeseriously.Itisfartooearlytodecidethat“Nothingwasdelivered”,weareonlybeginningtodiscoverthecomplexitiesanddepthsofwhatwediscuss.IassumethatDavidisreadingtheseresponsesinthespiritinwhichtheyareintended,andIamencouragedinthisbynotinghisown

35deconstructivecommentsontheimportanceofdestabilisingthebinary:enchantmentgood,disenchantmentbad.BestwishesMarkRe:[Iajsdiscussion]TowardANewAnimism:Jung,HillmanandAnalyticalPsychologybyDavidTaceyyouomittomentionthatbeforethefantasycanbeengagedwiththerapeuticallyinthewayyoudescribe,itisnecessaryforthefantasytoberecognisedasfantasy.Solongasthepatientinsiststhathermotheris,infact,anevilwitch,onlysomuchtransformativepsychologicalworkthatcanbedone.Theimportantshifthappenswhenthis‘fact’isseenthroughasfantasy.DearMark,Youarecorrect,ofcourse.Thatisanimportantdistinction,andmyanalogydoesn'tholdupineverytherapeuticsituation.Ihadbeenimaginingamorerobustpsychotherapeutic/transferencenarrativewhere,asJungiansmightsay,someemergenceofthe"transcendentfunction"haspeepedupandperhapsgesturedtowardaprogressivedirection.MyaiminmycommentsonDavid’spostwastosuggestthattheenchantment/disenchantmentnarrativewasnotahistoricalfactbutafantasy.Onceitisseenthroughasfantasywecanbegintoworkwithitpsychologicallybecausethismovebreaksusoutofliteralism.Iagreewithyou,andIaskyourforgivenessforusingyourpostasatakingoffpointformypreviousresponse.ImeantreallytorespondtoatrendthatInoticedinthepostsofafewpeople.Youalwaysarticulatepostmodernistideassowell,though,thatIonlyquotedfromyou.Andthisisn'tentirelyfair,becauseIagreewithmanyofyourarticulations...evenasmystanceisdecidedlyskepticalwherepostmodernismisconcerned.AswithJungianism,myskepticismisaddressedtoideological(andethical)interpretationsofpostmodernism.Theseeing‐throughandgenericdeconstructionthatthepostmodernistlensoffersdoesnotoffendmeandevenseemsentirelycompatiblewithJungian/psychoanalyticanalysisofculture,complex,andpsycheingeneral.Myfeelingisthatalltrendsinintellectualdiscussionthathavethepotentialtomovetowardunconsciousfixation(wheretheybecomeargumentsforgroupidentityratherthanforlogic)requireacounterpoint.I.e.culturalcomplexes,whetherpostmodernist,Jungian,scientific/scientistic,modern,romantic,etc.tendtodistortperceptionandderailcommunication(orthecapacitytorecognizeandrelatetootherness).Asalways,mytakeonanti‐scienceattitudesineitherpostmodernismorJungianismisthattheyarebasedinaculturalcomplexandbecomedistortedbytheirrational(andarchetypal)dimensionsofsuchacomplex.Therefore,IdidnotwanttoseeDavid'svaluationof"postmodernscience"obscuredbehindacloakofpostmodernism.Inthiscaseitisfarfrombeingatriviallylinguisticpointbecauseitbreaksusoutoftheideathattherewasliterallyonceatimewhenwewereenchanted,andthen

36anothertimewhenweweredisenchanted,butifwedotherightthingstherewillbeyetanothertimewhenwecanbecomere‐enchanted:past‐present‐future.Oncewehavebrokenoutifthisliteralnarrativewecanentertainallkindsofcreativepossibilities.Idon'tdisagree.Thecentralprobleminthislanguage(asIseeit)isthatenchantment/disenchantmentisamythopoeticconstruction...which(tobesimplisticbutnot,Ithink,totallyinaccurate)is"romantic",andtheromanticisadecidedlymodernmindset.MuchJungianismoperatesinthismythopoetic/romantic/modernistfantasyorgrammar.Thatisapotentialproblem(atleastacomplication)initself...butnotDavid'sfault,norisitimportant(Ithink)totheprimaryargumentofhispaper.David'saudienceisJungian,andonespeakstoJungiansinJungiandialectifoneistobeunderstood(thinkhowmuchmytalkoftribalismdrivesJungianscrazy...itisnotpartoftheJungiandialect).Somyfeelingisthatwecannotonlydeconstructthemythopoeticismof"enchantment".Wemustalsotrytounderstandwhatitmightmean.Wehavetointerpretit.Daviddoesnotpursuethisinhispaper,buthesuggeststhat"postmodernscience"hasbeendevelopingthenecessarylanguageforsuchaninterpretation.Iamentirelyinfavorofmovingoutofthemythopoeticconstructionofenchantment/postmodernscience.ButIthinkwehavetomovethroughitfirst.Ifwerenderittodust,thenwehavenowaytotalkabouttheissueDavidistryingtointroduce.So,canweunderstandwhatenchantment/disenchantmentmeanstotheJungianmindset?Ithink,yes,wecan...becauseenchantmentlikethisis,asyourightlynote,a"modernist[andspecificallyaromanticmodernist]fantasy".AndJungianismisfundamentallyromantic(albeit,Ithink,notonlyromantic)."Enchantment"maystillbeavailableallaroundus,buttheromanticmodernfeelsdisenchanted.Idon'tthinkthisfeelingofdisenchantmentispurelydelusional.Somethingismissingthatisfelttobeneeded(atleastbytheromantic).Andoneoftheprimarystrugglesregardingthisfeelingofdisenchantmentisthatitisdamnnearimpossibletolanguageadequately.Ifwecouldlanguageitwellenough,wewouldknowhowtolookrightinfrontofournosestofindthatmissing"enchantment"orsoul.Butwefailagainandagaintodothisinasustainableway.Jungianpsychotherapystrivestodevelopatreatmentforthis.Therefore,Iwouldarguethatdeposingofthemodernistfantasyof"enchantment"isakintoneuteringtheJungianpsychotherapeuticproject.Whatneedstobeworkedatinsteadistherelanguagingofthiswoundednessandneed...becausethemythopoeticlanguageisnotrobustenough,doesnotworkwellenoughforadiversityofpeople.IthinkDavid'shunchthat"postmodernscience"holdsanimportantkeytothisrelanguagingprojectisagoodone.Butcurrently(fortheromanticortheJungian),this"postmodernscience"isavagueotherness,amysticalarchetype,afantasyitself.Thatis,itisbeingimaginedonlythroughthemythopoeticimaginationanditappearsasakindofinferiorfunction(tous).WhatIseeatthecoreofDavid'spaperisacallfortherevaluationoftheinferiorfunctionthathasbeenspontaneouslyandautonomouslyemergingandinveiglingitselfintoouregoic,romanticmythopoeticism...thecharacterofourculturalcomplex.

37Butthepointisthatitwasthereallthetime,inthemidstof‘modernity’forthosewitheyestoseeit,andforthemtheworldwas/isalwaysalreadytransformed.Mypointisthatwhatour‘modernity’isaboutistheawkwardanduncomfortablefactthatweasmodernsareenchantedanddisenchantedatthesametime,andindeedthatthatiswhatparticularlycharacterisesmodernity.AsImentionedinthelastpost,Ithinkitisonlyfairtocallthisconstructiona"postmodernistfantasy".Thequestion(aswithDavid'sconstruction)is,canthisberelanguaged/reimaginedinamoreprogressiveway?Forinstance(andasbefore),thisfantasyisveryexclusive("forthosewhohaveeyestoseeit").Andsinceitisthusbasedontheutilizationofacertain(probablyarbitrary)lens,itisboundtodividepeopleupintobelieversandnon‐believers,thechosenandtheinfidels(tostateitmoredramatically).Butisthereanywayofdetermining(inamoreuniversallanguage)whetherthisparticularlensorparadigmisfunctionaloraccurate?Isthereanywaytoavoidtellingthosewhostillfeel"disenchanted"thatitisreallytheirownfaultfornothavingtherightbeliefs,notpickingtherightreligionorGod?IworrythatthisdissolvesintoatribalisticUsvs.Themdichotomy.Andisthatkindoftribalismmodernorpostmodern?Idon'tthinkso,becauseitdoesn'trespondtotherealityofthemodernworldwhichismassivelydiverse,populationdense,andincreasinglyculturally"global".Thisistobecontrastedwithprehistoricandpremoderntribalismwherethe"enchanting"religionwassupportedbytheentiretribe.Todaythereisno"onetribe",butthereisacommonlanguageandalargelysharedsocial/political/economic/environmentalreality.Theprojectof"re‐enchantment"cannotbeaconversionofallmodernstoonereligionorworldview.Itwouldhavetobeauniversallyavailablesetoflanguagingtoolsthatdidnotrequirethosewhousedthemtobelongtoaspecifictribeorupholdaspecifictribalideology.Butmorespecifically,wearetalkingabouttherelationshipofhumanbeingswithnature.Andtheproblem(perhapsthisisthedisenchantment)isthathumanculturetendstofunctionasaprophylacticagainstnature.Thatmaybeanevolvedadaptation...thatcapacitytocontrolandmanipulatetheenvironmentsoextensivelyastomakeitalmostanon‐factorinsurvivableliving.Butourspecies'environmentalfootprinthasbecomesoseverethatnatureisonceagainhowlingbarbarouslyatourgate.Itdemandsthatweradicallyrethinkthewayweinteractwithnature(inmuchthesamewaythatinsurgentpsychologicalcomplexesdemandwereorganizeourrelationshipwithourownpersonalnatureorwiththestructureanddynamicsoftheautonomouspsyche).Inthiscontext,enchantment/disenchantmentisatbestanextremelyabstractmetaphorfortheproblemathand.Iwouldsuggestthatthisislessa"religious"issuethanamatterofdevelopingastrongersenseofconsciousresponsibilityfortheeffectsandexternalitiesourhabitual,modernmaintenanceofselfhoodhasonothersandotherness(includingotherspeciesandother/externalecosystems).Youhaveharshwordsforpostmodernism.Itwouldbeabsurdformetotrytodefendpostmodernismtoutcourt.Thetermcoversamultitudeofattitudesandagendas.WhenIinvoketheworld,ImeanmostlyDerrideandeconstruction.AsI

38understandit,Derridaisnotattemptinganadolescentprovocationinthefaceofhiseldersandbetters,butadestabilisationofsedimentedideaswiththeaimofkeepingthinkingfreshandalive.Thedeconstructivemoveiscritical,butnotinthesensethatitattemptstoknockdownordisproveanargument.WhenDerrida,forexample,deconstructsLevi‐Strauss’sstructuralism,orLevinas’TotalityandInfinity,hedoessowithenormousrespect,andtheeffectistoopenouttheargument.Farfromobliteratingtheirthinking,itservestorevealLevi‐StraussandLevinasinamuchwiderandmorefluidperspective,untetheredtototalisingessentialistassumptions.IhavenorealobjectiontoDerrideandeconstructionasananalyticalorperspectivaltool.I'mnowherenearanexpertonDerrida,butfromthereadingsIhavedone,Iagreethatheisrespectfulandnotinherentlyadolescentornihilistic.ButIalsothinktheChristianethicalmessageintheGospelsisrelativelysound...andyetIamadamantlyopposedtothemanyatrocitiescommittedinthenameofChristandChristianity.Theproblemisthatdeconstructivetoolsarepotentiallypowerfulweapons.Deconstruction(fromwhatIhaveseenandread,andpleasecorrectmeifIamwrong)doesnothaveanethicalcomponenttoaccompanytheuseofitstoolandmanagethewayitisused.Theresultissomethinglikesellinghandgunscheaplyatstreetsidestandstoanyonewhohasthecash.Thatis,thepeoplemostinclinedtopurchaseandusetheseweaponsaretheoneswhoaremostlikelytousethemviolentlyandtribally(wherewecouldimaginethetribeasastreetgang).Theweaponsenablethealreadyexistentgangviolenceimpulse.Whatdevelopsisanideologyofthegun,asensethatthegunisthe"god"behindone'sidentity(asweseeingangmentality).Thesegangsarepredominantlyadolescent.Theadolescentmentalityismostsusceptibletothisformoftribalempowermentandself‐definition.Idon'tthinkitcanbecontestedthatDerrideandeconstructionhasbeenusedtriballyandviolentlyandrepeatedlysooverthelastdecadesinacademia.Iaminclinedtothinkethicallyaboutthis.Iamopposedtothecultofthegun.Iseeitasdangerousandpurelydestructive.Myobjectiontopostmodernismisanobjectiontothiskindof"violent"tribalismasithasbeenandcontinuestobepracticed.AsecondaryobjectionIhavetosuchpostmodernism(andeventoitsmoredignifiedfounderslikeDerrida)isthatnoethicalsystemoftool/weaponmanagementwaswrittenintothephilosophy.Thepotentialdangerousness/divisivenessofthetoolscoupledwiththelackofethicalmaintenanceleadsinevitablytoadolescent,gang‐like,tribalisticcultureandtheuseofthetribaltoolsforidentity‐protection(whichincludesboththedefenseofculturalidentityandtheattack/destructionofthosewithotherculturalidentitiesandaffiliations).Fromapre‐moderntribalstandpoint,whatislackinginthecultureofpostmodernismisego‐dissolvinginitiationintoresponsibleadulthood.Thesameproblemispresentedtopsychoanalysisandanalyticalpsychologywhereanalysisandpathologizationarepotentiallydangerousweapons.Sometimesthishascreatedunnecessary"violence"andgang‐likebehavior,butithasbeenmediated(withreasonableeffectiveness)byamorematuresenseoftherapeuticconcernforpatients(theotherinthisequation),andalsobysome(albeitremote)relationshiptothepatternofinitiationintoadulthood.

39Postmodernismhasnosuchmediatingfactororideology/valuesystem.WhatIseeaspotentiallydangerousintheincorporationofpostmodernismintoJungianthoughtisthatthisdemandsaradicalincreaseinethicalconsciousnessandawarenessofthepotentialgang‐like/"violent"usageofpostmodernisttools.Canweadoptthetoolswithoutadoptingtheculture*?AndhowmuchawarenessofthisproblemofadoptionhasbeendemonstratedintheJungiancommunityandliteraturesofar?FromwhatI'veseen,essentiallyzip.Andthatfrightensme,becauseIthinkitthreatenstoregressJungianthinking.Jungianismhasalwaysexistedonthecuspofadolescence(astheobsession/complexwithpuer/senexsuggests).Ithasclassicallyenvisionedandbeenattractedtoinitiationintoadulthood,buthasalwayshad"thresholdjitters"(e.g.,moralpolarizationofarchetypes,aproblemwiththehero,adistastefor/devaluationofthephysical/biological,andnoeffectiveresponseto/treatmentofinflation).[*seehowthissamequestionplaysoutcurrentlywithevolutionarypsychology'spotentialincorporationintoJungianism.Here,manyJungiansshowawarenessandvoiceopposition.Thisisadoublestandard,asignofclearunconsciousnessinourrelationshiptopostmodernism.]Thismakespostmodernistinseminationallthemoredangerous.CantheadoptionofthepostmodernisttoolsandculturebeethicallymediatedbyalreadyanshakyJungianculturalapparatusofinitiationintoadultresponsibility?OrwillthatinfluxofadolescentaggressionandtemptationbogdowntheinitiationcapacityofJungianculture,pushingJungianismintoanincreasinglydysfunctionalandnon‐adaptivetribalism?Inotherwords,arewe"mature"enoughtousepostmodernisttoolswiselyandethicallyandresisttheirattractiontotribalistdynamics?WithoutanydemonstrationofawarenessaboutthisissueintheJungiancommunity,onemustconcludethatno,wearenot"mature"enoughasacultureortribe.Andtherefore,wehavenoJungianperspectiveonpostmodernism,nocounterpoint,noabilitytomediateit.Inessence,wemaynothaveafunctionalimmunesystem(i.e.,culturalidentity)todealwiththeparsingofideologicalpostmodernism.So,inthiscase,myaimisnottoshowhowDavidiswrong,buttocomplexifythepicture.IfItrytorevealthewaysinwhichanimistculturesarenotsimplyenchanted,andthewaysinwhichourmoderncultureisnotsimplydisenchanted,IdosonotinordertoscorepointsoffDavidandhisargument,buttoaddadifferentdimensiontoanissuewhichItakeseriously.Isupportyouintheobjectiveofcomplexification,andyoupresentessentialquestionsthatwedefinitelyneedtowrestlewith.Myintentionisnottoopposeyouinthis,buttoaddadditionalcomplexificationintheformofadvocatingthatwemustbothdeconstructthelanguagebeingusedandalsomaintainanethicalawarenessofhowweaccomplishthatdeconstructionandwhatitsramificationsmightbe.Idefinitelydon'tseeyouasguiltyofwantingtodestroyDavid'sargument.Idon'tfeelthat"nothingwasdelivered".Imeanttospeakupinthenameofmakingsurethatweareconsciousofthepossibilitythat,leftuncontestedandun‐complexified,thesystemicattractionof"nothingwasdelivered"deconstructivenihilismcouldpotentiallybecometheCharybdistothemythopoetic/romanticScylla.Iamhoping

40wecansteerbetweenthemandfindtheunderlyingcurrentthatmightmovethisjourneyonward.Bestregards(andGodspeed),MattI have been following this discussion on David’s fine paper “Toward a New Animism: Jung’s Vision of Reality” for the last few days, coming into it a bit late, yet, I have been interested in the questions and ideas focused most recently on the metaphors David uses to get at the meaning of the paper’s key terms. I want to begin with a quote by the most recent discussant, Matt Koeske: Obviously, "new animism" and "re-enchantment" remain as yet un-, or at least inadequately, defined. But I contend that these things cannot be adequately defined until we venture into the story (and its central conflict) more thoroughly. We have no means yet to define these terms. Here are some preliminary questions: “How might we enter more deeply into the terms of the story?” “Is there a central conflict to be ventured into revolving around the concept of projection?” “What might the means be to help us further attempt to define the terms ‘new animism,’ ‘re-enchantment,’ and ‘withdrawal of projections’”? There appears to be some mixed feelings about the use of the term “re-enchantment.” In the context of David’s hypothesis, placed in a literary context that is poetical (Lawrence) and part of Jung’s ongoing project to move beyond a “modernist and Cartesian project of the withdrawal of projections” in the “opposite direction towards the “reanimation of the world,” I do not object to the use of the word “re-animation.” Perhaps, in the interests of further asking David to be more precise about definitions of terminology, it would be helpful to amplify the context of Lawrence’s statement “we can’t go back.” Can’t go back to what? To David’s stage one: enchantment through animism and pantheism? It seems that some amplification is missing here and may be helpful. Lawrence wrote in another place: "The truth of the matter is, one cannot go back.... and I know that I could never go back. Back towards the past, savage life. One cannot go back. It is one's destiny inside one." A further question to David is this: “Did Lawrence arrive at his metaphor of the ‘great swerve, that seems a retrogression” after he read Jung?” I assume he did. I read Lawrence’s “great swerve” as a symbol that led him to a new style of incantation in New Mexico, and this swerve to what he called the “old, old root of human consciousness” might have a direct bearing on what re-animation in analytical psychology means in the category of a hypothetical stage three: “re-animating the world.” By “retrogression,” was Lawrence thinking of Jung’s idea of regression of the libido back to the mother? I don’t want to go on at too much length about this, as I have written about it elsewhere in published and unpublished works, yet, I feel it is vital to insert into the discussion a fact that Lawrence was indeed reading Jung’s “Psychology of the Unconscious” in December of 1918, at the same time he was writing his essays on “The Transcendent Element in American (Classic) Literature.” He was also speaking in letters also about going to America, and arrived in Taos several years before Jung did, while searching for his own myth outside his culture and his time. It

41was while listening to the sound of the chanting of Native Americans in New Mexico, furthermore, and the sound of the Taos drums, that Lawrence’s Christian identity, upon which he says his European character had been established, was “shattered” and he was left with feelings of awe and reverence for something profoundly “religious.” This may have been the moment of his great swerve. So when you write that “Jung attempts Lawrence’s great detour toward the primal mysteries” it is important to consider whether it may not actually have been the other way around: Lawrence may have attempted Jung’s detour and fell into it, in Taos. Another question I have is whether Jung “kept hitting a conceptual and epistemological brick wall” in “his scientific thinking” that kept him from being carried “across the dualistic boundary which separates psyche and world.” This sounds rather questionable, as Jung makes no distinction between his usage of the words “soul” and “mind” in “Mind and Earth,” and he was already thinking from his heart, as Mountain Lake had taught him in Taos, as early as 1934, and was cautiously searching for a conceptual way to think with heart, from the depths of the oneness of body and psyche, or from “tap-root” to break the “space-time” barrier with parapsychological facts, which had interested him even prior to his advancing his theories of complex psychology. I want to further question whether Jung’s scientific hypothesis of the collective psyche really failed to “carry him across the dualistic boundary which separates psyche and world.” Was Jung “groping in the dark for a science that has not yet been invented”? Or, did Jung lay down a cornerstone for it, with his theory of archetypes? The title of your paper and your references to poetry and synchronicity would seem to suggest that he did. I like “re-enchantment” because of the context in which you situate it, David. Webster’s traces the word enchantment to the Latin incantare, from in “against” + cantare, to sing or chant. Both Jung and Lawrence were attempting to find a way to chant against dualism. Jung’s music can be heard throughout much of his works. Lawrence’s is of course more obvious. The meaning of incantare I prefer in this context is a ceremonial chanting, or reciting of incantations (as for curing disease). Lawrence, after all, was a chanter, a poet and great writer, and Jung too relied on poetry and mythopoetic metaphors to get at his scientific meanings, as when he says in his opening line “mind and earth” has a “slightly poetic ring.” Paradoxically, it is precisely at this moment in the history of analytical psychology that “re-animation” is reasserting itself as a notion to assist in the process of healing disembodied thoughts of apparent splits by re-visioning Jung’s views on projection. The idea of a return “back” to “tap-root” (Jung’s term) or the “old, old root of human consciousness” (Lawrence’s) as a way to move forward towards a new animism, as a destiny inside us, is present in Jung’s Seminars on Children’s Dreams, when he speaks of something in “the soul of the child, shaping his whole destiny, as well as those retrospective intuitions which reach back far beyond the range of childhood experience into the life of our ancestors.” The roots for this idea may be found present in embryo form in his 1912 masterpiece, before Lawrence’s reading of it, probably the 1916 Beatrice Hinkle translation lent to him by a friend. I submit these prefatory questions to ask for further clarification. I like your basic hypothesis, David. Thank you. Steven B. Herrmann, PhD, MFT

42DearMaryann,Thisbywayofresponsetotwoofyourposts:Idonotseethenewanimism,asIamcallingit,aspartofaculturalcomplex.Ithinkthattopicisridingonadifferenttram.Iamco‐editingabookonculturalcomplexesatthismoment,soitisrelevanttomyinterests.ButIdonotseeanyrealoverlap,apartfromtheobviousfactthatculturalcomplexesandthenewanimismtakeourdiscussionandattentionintocultureandcosmos,asyousuggest.Thenewanimismisareturntomodernconsciousnessofadifferentpatternofseeing.Itseestheworldas"alive",andthisalivenessisnotreducibletohumanprojectionsontotheworld.Thereissomethinginherentlyaliveabouttheworld,andthishasbeenkeptfromoursightforsometimenow,atleastduringthemorerationalphasesofintellectualenlightenment.However,therewerealwaysthosewhowerenotconvincedbyrationalenlightenment,suchasSpinozainparticular,andnowisthetimeto"rediscover"thesethinkers,whowillpavethewaytothenewconsciousness,inmyview.Itisinterestingtoseehoweco‐philosophyisnowretrievingSpinozafromthefogsofintellectualhistory,justaseco‐theologyisdoingsimilarthingswithMeisterEckhart.Thecrisisoftheecologicalemergencywilldoagreatdealtohastenthereturnofanimisticthinking‐exceptthatwehavetolearntodissociateanimismfromTylor,whogaveitamerelynegativedefinition.Theterm"animism"itselfmayberecoverable,however.Yes,thenewanimismandre‐enchantmentarenotthesamething,either.Butagain,thereisoverlap.Re‐enchantmenthasthesenseofaconsciousproject,agoaloraspirationinculture.Thenewanimism,however,hasthesenseofsomethinginvoluntarilyrisingintoconsciousness,anautonomousmovementofthepsyche.Farfrombeingaconsciousordeliberateproject,itisoftenaninterruption,anembarrassmentofsorts,untilproperlyclaimedandunderstood.IthinkonepointIamtryingtomakeinthisseminar,isthatsomeofwhatwehabituallycallprojections,especiallyculturalconstructionsofgodsandspirit,maynotbeprojections.ToassumethatgodsareprojectionsofthehumanisnottothinkinaccordancewithamajorveinofJung'sthought.IamtryingtogetJungianpsychologytobecomemoreconsciousofitsownlanguageandterminology‐anditsownmethods.best,DavidDearMattandAll,Ithinkthatmostoftheissuesyouraiseinthislongemailhavebeenrespondedtointheensuingdiscussion,andthereforedonotneedspecialattention.MarkandI

43havediscussedshiftingenchantment/disenchantment/re‐enchantmentfrom"stages"to"modes"ofconsciousness.Asmodes,theycannotbeconfinedtostages,butmaybefoundatthesametimeinhistory,withinoverlappingcircles.Onthetopicofpostmodernism,Itendtoagreewithyouthatlargelythismovementhassimplybeenaformofultra‐modernism.Thatis,ithasnotgenuinelytranscendedmodernity,buthasmerelyextendeditintonewforms,andtosomeextentdeepeneditsnihilism.Oneofmycolleaguescallsit"most‐modernism".However,thereisanothersideofpostmodernism,whichdoesnotgetasmuchair‐play.Thisisitsredemptiveandtheologicalaspect,inwhichtraditionalbeliefsarebroughtbackintoplayandexperiencedinnewways.OneofthebestbooksonthisculturalphenomenonisCharleneSpretnak'sStatesofGrace:TheRecoveryofMeaninginthePostmodernAge.Thistrulyinspiredbookhelpsusseetheelementoftranscendencethatpostmodernismhasexposedusto,inwaysinwhichmodernismdidnot.ThenthereistheimportantvolumebyGrahamWardcalledThePostmodernGod.Thelast10or15booksbyJacquesDerridaalloperateinthisredemptivemode,andshouldbeconsulted,especiallyhisbookReligion,butalsoOfSpirit.EverythingwrittenbypostmodernphilosophersJohnCaputo,MichaelScanlonandKevinHartoperatesinthetranscendentmode.Thosewhoconstantlycomplainaboutthenihilismofpostmodernityshouldexplorethislibraryofworkswhichopensupthepossibilityofre‐enchantmentinthepostmodernperiod.Ifpeoplespentasmuchtimereadingpostmodernworksinsteadofcomplainingaboutthem,wemighthaveadeeperlevelofdiscussion.Imyselfhavemadeasmallcontributiontothisfield,withabookonre‐enchantmentandculturalstudies,andindividualessaysonthereturnofmysticalvisionintheworksoflateDerrida,andinthepostmodernFreudianpsychoanalyticmovement.Thenthereistheseparatebutrelatedfieldofpostmodernscience,whichisanothermatterentirely.Idon'thavetimetogointothisatanylength,excepttosaythatwhatwearefindinginphilosophy,depthpsychologyandculturalstudiesisperhapsmorestronglyevidentinpostmodernscience.AlongwithSamuelBeckett,wecanconcludethat"Somethingistakingitscourse".best,DavidLaTrobeUniversity,MelbourneDiscussion on Projection & Animism On the topic of Projections & Animism: There is a fine, if now old, essay by Giegerich on this topic: The Leap After the Throw: On 'Catching Up With' Projections and the Origin of Psychology. Originally published 1979 in German, this is now translated in Vol. 1 Collected English Papers 2005. It addresses points raised by David Tacey and John Dourley - from a different perspective, clearly, but fastidiously thought through as ever with G.

44With thanks to thoughtful contributions. It is a pleasure to read IAJS posts once again.Regards, Judith Judith,Ihavenotseenthisarticle,andthanksforpointingitout.AreyoureferringtotheCollectedEnglishPapersofGiegerich?Mypersonallibrarydoesnothavethesepapers,nordoesmyuniversitylibrary.Iwouldliketoorderthem,ifpossible,sothanksforpointingtothisarticle.ItrytoreadasmuchGiegerichasIcanlaymyhandson,butsometimeshisworksarehardtofind.IhavejustfinishedreadinghiswonderfulstudyontheRedBookinthecurrentissueofSpringJournal,andamamazedatthehighqualityofhispenetratinganalysis.IthasreallysetthepaceforRedBookdiscussionsintothefuture.Thanks,David HiJohn,Ihavebeenponderingyourreplyforafewdays,butIdon'tthinkyouhavegrappledwiththerealissuere:projectionandanimism.ThemainpointImadeisthatJungdoesnotsupport"withdrawingprojections"intheblanket,automatic,unreflective,chant‐likewayinwhichthisisrepeatedinJungianandtherapycircles.Yourreplydoesnotrespondtothismainpoint,butside‐stepsitbygoingintoacademicdiscourseaboutepistemology.WemaynotlikethefactthatJunghimselfwasambivalentaboutthe'sacredcow'ofwithdrawingprojections,butitissomethingthatwehavetotrytoface,howeverdreadfulandshockingitseems.AnimaMundiiscertainlynotaCartesianperspective,andIdon'tseehowyoucouldevensuggestthis.Butthereisnoneedtoreadmeonthis,orHillmanonthis,butwesimplyhavetore‐readJunghimselfwithopeneyes.bestwishes,David David,IdontthinkgettingtoJung'srathersophisticatedlateepistemologyisside‐steppinganyissue.ThepointIwanttodwellonisthattherecoveryofthesouloftheworldandthesenseoftheoneworldisaconsequenceoftherecoveryofthatinteriorpointinwhichthepsycheconnectswiththesouloftheworldanditsunderlyingunity.Thisreconnectionisinthefirstinstanceaprofoundlyinnerpreconditiontotheperceptionofeitherthesoulintheworldorthesenseofanunderlyingunityorsubstrateastheultimateresourceingroundingdiversityinagenerativeunity.Ithink

45intheendtherecoveryoftheinnerconnectionisoneofhumanity'sgreatestsurvivalstrategies.Otherwiseourfaithswillconsumeus.ThisiswhyIthinkyourlineofenquiryissovaluableinrestoringthelostlinkwiththeinnerpointofcoincidenceofsoulwithworld.Anyway,IseewhereyousaythatyouhavemorepressingfishtofryasdoI.Thanksforthepaperanditsstimulation.Alltheverybest.JohnThankyoufortheinterestingdiscussion!ForyearsagoIusedtoliveintheFinnishLapland,withthereindeer‐keepingSamipeople.Formanyofthemtheworldofspiritsisasrealashouses,cars,shopsandothervisiblethingsinthemodernworld.Thosepeoplealsothinkintermsofmythology,whichmakesthelifeverypoeticandromantic.Thereisasayingforalmostanything:forthefireescapingthehearth,wheretomakeacampandwherenot,howtogetfish…andsoon.Themountaintopsonthefellsarecharacterisedaspersonalitiesandtheirspiritsarepresentineverydaylife.Itis,however,impossibletorealisewhichpartofthemythologicalstateofmindcomesfromindividualpeople’spresentfearsandhopes,whichistraditionalknowledgepassedonforgenerations,andwhichofthevoicesbelongtothe’realspirits’.Ithink,andhavetheexperiencethatmuchofthespiritualworldcorrespondstotheunconsciousthatispersonifiedand,insomecases,projectedontheoutsideworld.Muchofthespiritualworldisblackmagic,anevileyeturningonyou,aspelloracurse,superstitiousbeliefsofallkinds.Eveninthespiritualworld,amongthespirits,itstilltakesanindividualandanindividuatedmindtodecidewhomandwhattobelieve.Whethertobelieveinwhateverybodyelseseemstobelievein,ormakeone’sownchoicesandtakethesocialresponsibilityforthem.Itisagoodpointthatwehaveneverleft,andneverwillleave,theworldofanimism.Taketheglobalepidemicflues,forexample.WholecountriesinEuropevaccinatedtheircitizensagainsttheH1N1‘swineflu’,aprocessthatwasnotcompletelyfreefromsignsofmasshysteriaandfearoftheunknown.Thedecisiontonottotakethevaccinewasnoteasytomake,whenalmosteverybodyelsewastakingit.Youshouldmakeapersonaldecisionbutalsothinkofyourchildrenandfamily,oftheirfriendsandthewholesociety.Thepossibilityofanevileyestaringfromthecrowdsortheskiesaboveattheonesdisobeyingtherulebecamestrangelyrealistic.PaiviDavid,Furthertomyearlierquestion‐isdiscussionof'animism'‐and'thenewanimism'‐partoftwodisciplines‐bothanthropologyandreligiousstudies?Thesetwofieldsarecontingentratherthaninterwoven,Isuspect.Thehumanphenomenonofreligiousbeliefcanbecontemplatedineitherofthesedisciplines.Perhapsapsychologicalinvestigationisclosertophilosophyorreligiousstudiesthananthropology?

46Iknowthatinthegrandschemeofthings,thisdoesnotmatterafterall‐butithelpstodistinguishcriteria;storiesofhowvariouspeoplepersonifyoranimate(inotherways)materialobjects,orhowelectricityisperceivedasamiraculousoccurrenceorasascientificfact(whichmechanismswemayneverfullyuncover)arewaysofcontemplatingthesameevent.Anthropologicalreportsorobservationsstillkeeptheobserverontheoutsideinthatperspective.Religiousstudiesgetsclosertoaninside,subjectivelookattheseevents,no?(IamstilltakingonByron'spassionateresponseaboutZizek'spieceforwhich,thanks.)Jung'sstoriesofhisencounterswithPuebloIndians,ashecalledthem,haveareligious/psychologicalperspective‐theirmorningpracticesurgedthesunonitsway;andheexploresthenatureoftheirbelief‐andconveystheclosenessoftheirculturaloutlooktotheirpersonalbeliefandpsychology.Insomeways,heempathisesclosely,+hebeginstoparticipate(touseawordladenwithbaggageinJungianliterature).Butheisnotananthropologist‐Iambecomingconfusedastohow/whyanthropoligcaldataisbeingemployedhere.JustasinJung'sdiscussioninPsychologicalTypesaboutnominalismpointsatthedistinctionsofapsychologicalapproachtothatancientphilosophicaldilemmaisexploredinengagingterms;itisapsychologicalanalysiscloselyintertwinedwithreligiousbeliefsofAbelardandLuther.However,IdonotaccuseJungof'psychologism'incontemplatingthosephilosophicalissuesbecausehisfundamentalpoint(inrelatedwayslikeNietzsche'sideastoo)isthatphilosophyandpsychology,orpersonalitytypes,areconstitutedaprioribythecontemplatingphilosopher‐asareallourthoughtsandstudies.ashamanisareligiousfigureandprobablyourcontemplationoftheshaman'spowersaretodowiththosereligiouspowersratherthantodowithastudyofthetribe,somehow.itshierarchyorstatusofwomen,etc.sorryfortheill‐definednatureofmyquestionhere‐LesliefromLondonDear Leslie and all, The issue of disciplines is a vexed one, and difficult to answer clearly. If analytical psychology had been accepted into the university system, which it has not, then it would simply be a matter of pointing to "analytical psychology" as the appropriate discipline. Currently it seems to be an off-campus discipline, so to speak. It sometimes finds its way into various related disciplines, but not always. In some ways, Jungian psychology is technically "undisciplined" by the nature of its project. Jung often drew our attention to the fluidity of disciplinary boundaries: "I can hardly draw a veil over the fact that we psychotherapists ought really to be philosophers or philosophic doctors - or rather that we already are so, though we are unwilling to admit it because of the glaring contrast between our work and what passes for

47philosophy in the universities. We could also call it religion in statu nascendi, for in the vast confusion that reigns at the roots of life there is no line of division between philosophy and religion". - "Psychotherapy and a Philosophy of Life", 1943, CW Vol 16, § 181. The psyche does not respect disciplinary boundaries, and nor can a depth psychologist, up to a point. One needs to go where psyche is found, and in the case of the new animism, this means moving across depth psychology, religious studies, anthropology and sociology. Pedants and sticklers in the academic system will cry "foul" at this fluidity, and request that each scholar should keep to her/his own boundaries of expertise, but in the interests of pursuit of truth, such "silo" thinking is not always possible. The fact is that there can be no expertise where psyche is concerned; because psyche is our teacher, not we its teacher. regards, David La Trobe University, Melbourne Dear David, Lesley and all, I so appreciate the phrase of Jung’s you included, David: the vast confusion that reigns at the roots of life. It was precisely this issue that I thought Maryanne’s reference highlighted and to which I responded, linking trauma (War and incest) with a buried Eros: Jung’s prefaces. The first one in this volume was written in Dec.1916, the next one Oct. 1918 and so on. In the first one Jung is writing about the psychological concomitants of the World War – and the problem of the chaotic unconscious which slumbers uneasily beneath the ordered world of consciousness. (Jung explores further, and for the rest of his life as far as I can make out the need for the individual to return to the” ground of human nature”, to digest ‘neurosis’. Interestingly very early Jung recognized the order buried in chaos – that contemporary ‘ chaos theory’ elaborates. ) Jung goes on to ask where is the mighty Eros in this muddle? The question is certainly alive today! The difficulty of learning to actually ‘see’/ etc. is how Jung sometimes describes the process of individuation. And yes, David, how to surrender to this ‘learning’, and engage with it? Personally, I don’t think we need to ‘animate’ or re-enchant the world. More, I

48am interested in a capacity to engage and live within what I am ‘seeing’. The care required for looking...details...and the need to explore the art of being willing even NOT to see... leaving some ‘things’ BEYOND our reach/grasp. In this context I have found Randy Malamud’s article (Animals on Film) in the recent Spring (Vol. 83, 2010) most evocative. And Judith, it is in the same volume as Giegerich’s article on the Red Book – which I why I bought this volume too! I find that few people I meet have any idea that there is actually a vitality within them that is more that a surface gush of what I am calling now ‘the wow factor’ that seems to blanket the person’s ‘essential’ ‘way’ of living. In connection with this I have been re-reading Sean Mc.Grath (Dept. Of Philosophy, Memorial University Newfoundland, Canada) article in our International Journal of Jungian Studies, Vol 2 No.1. March 2010 pp 1 – 20. I am not referring above to being trapped in ‘subjectivization’...I am connecting it more with what Mc.Grath is calling for – a fullscale reconstruction of Jung’s relationship to Western esoteric traditions. (Footnote 2) This need rings true for me... Actually the whole Journal issue is germane to our present topic. I wonder if ‘our’ academics feel their work is actually being read and related to? Our list hardly seems to refer the the scholars who are actually contributing to IAJS. Perhaps I am looking in all the wrong places...and heavens only knows how hard it is to ‘be’ ‘current’. Yes, Lesley I think both statements about the sun are true! The experience of always seeing the sun in ‘this and that’ position is (or at least , used to be, part the experience of living in a cosmos, with feet on the ground. What has gone missing is ‘us in a cosmos’, perhaps.... Best wishes, Evangeline Rand DearLeslieThanksforthis.MyimmediateresponseistoagreethatakindofBabel‐likecacophonycanresultifthereisinsufficientnoticeisgiventothespecificityofthedisciplinesfromwhichevidenceisplucked.Jungiandiscoursecanbeverypronetothiskindofalmostrandomharvestingofvaguelyappropriatebutinsufficientlydigestedinformationfromwhicheversourceisavailable,whetheritbereligion,philosophy,anthropology,quantumtheory,brainscience,historyofideas,sociology,literature,theoryetcetc.Jungwasguiltyofthiskindofthinghimself.However,itisalsotruethatanalyticalpsychologyisaratherliminalfield:itinhabitsthebordersbetweendisciplines,borderswhichdonotalways‘officially’exist,andas

49aHermeticscienceitmakesconnectionswherenobodyexpectsconnections.Sotheapparentlybizarrejuxtapositionof,say,anthropologicaldiscoursewith,say,theologicaldiscourse,bothpresentedwithinapsychologicalcontextdosometimesmakeakindofMercurialsense.Thesamekindof(in)coherentsensewhichcanemergefromworkonthestrangeanddisparateelementsofadream.Butthisisanicetricktopulloffanditisveryeasytofallonyourface.Itrequiresaverylighthand.(sorryaboutthemixedmetaphors)Withregardtoanthropology,yousuggestthat“anthropologicalreportsorobservationsstillkeeptheobserverontheoutsideinthatperspective”.Imakenoclaimstobeingmorethanapatchilyinformedlaymaninthisfield,butIunderstandthatthisveryquestioniskeenlyarguedoverwithinanthropology.Anthropologistsuseawonderfultermtodescribefieldworkdoneinrelativeconsciousnessofthisproblem:‘participantobservation’.Iliketheparadoxicalnatureofthisterm,anditfeelsveryrelevanttowhatwedoinpsychotherapy.Onefootinandonefootout.Enchanteddisenchantment?Ofcoursethearmchairanthropologistsofyore(Tylor,Frazeretc)wereobservingtheobservationsofotherfieldworkers,observerswhotooklittlecognizanceofhowtheirownpresencewasaffectingthedatatheywerecollecting,justastheearlydynamicpsychiatristswereblissfullyignorantofthecomplextransferencetanglestheyweregettingintowiththeirpatients.BestwishesMarkDear David, Lesley and all, I so appreciate the phrase of Jung’s you included, David: the vast confusion that reigns at the roots of life. It was precisely this issue that I thought Maryanne’s reference highlighted and to which I responded, linking trauma (War and incest) with a buried Eros: Jung’s prefaces. The first one in this volume was written in Dec.1916, the next one Oct. 1918 and so on. In the first one Jung is writing about the psychological concomitants of the World War – and the problem of the chaotic unconscious which slumbers uneasily beneath the ordered world of consciousness. (Jung explores further, and for the rest of his life as far as I can make out the need for the individual to return to the” ground of human nature”, to digest ‘neurosis’. Interestingly very early Jung recognized the order buried in chaos – that contemporary ‘ chaos theory’ elaborates. ) Jung goes on to ask where is the mighty Eros in this muddle? The question is certainly alive today!

50The difficulty of learning to actually ‘see’/ etc. is how Jung sometimes describes the process of individuation. And yes, David, how to surrender to this ‘learning’, and engage with it? Personally, I don’t think we need to ‘animate’ or re-enchant the world. More, I am interested in a capacity to engage and live within what I am ‘seeing’. The care required for looking...details...and the need to explore the art of being willing even NOT to see... leaving some ‘things’ BEYOND our reach/grasp. In this context I have found Randy Malamud’s article (Animals on Film) in the recent Spring (Vol. 83, 2010) most evocative. And Judith, it is in the same volume as Giegerich’s article on the Red Book – which I why I bought this volume too! I find that few people I meet have any idea that there is actually a vitality within them that is more that a surface gush of what I am calling now ‘the wow factor’ that seems to blanket the person’s ‘essential’ ‘way’ of living. In connection with this I have been re-reading Sean Mc.Grath (Dept. Of Philosophy, Memorial University Newfoundland, Canada) article in our International Journal of Jungian Studies, Vol 2 No.1. March 2010 pp 1 – 20. I am not referring above to being trapped in ‘subjectivization’...I am connecting it more with what Mc.Grath is calling for – a fullscale reconstruction of Jung’s relationship to Western esoteric traditions. (Footnote 2) This need rings true for me... Actually the whole Journal issue is germane to our present topic. I wonder if ‘our’ academics feel their work is actually being read and related to? Our list hardly seems to refer the the scholars who are actually contributing to IAJS. Perhaps I am looking in all the wrong places...and heavens only knows how hard it is to ‘be’ ‘current’. Yes, Lesley I think both statements about the sun are true! The experience of always seeing the sun in ‘this and that’ position is (or at least , used to be, part the experience of living in a cosmos, with feet on the ground. What has gone missing is ‘us in a cosmos’, perhaps.... Best wishes, Evangeline Rand Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Dear David,Yes - there are now 3 volumes of G.'s Collected English Papers - and this essay is in Vol. 1. (Spring pub.s). The 4th Vol. is due out in November I believe.

51It's a pleasure that someone else appreciated the in-depth review of the Red Book, my having bought a copy of Spring Journal for this purpose. Whether or not this "sets the pace for R.Book discussion in future" .... ?? I don't follow the Jungian Journals, but from knowledge of previous history I rather suspect he may not be taken up. I am not a scholar, but I recognise "philsophical eros" when I come across it - which Giegerich's work embodies in good measure. Since hearing him address the Guild of Pastoral Psychology, I seek out & buy his volumes. Only in this way can I return to particular passages when my mind balks at something (regularly!) - and I want to re-read how he arrives at ....... etc. He is through-and-through 'psychological' (and historical) - and this adds what, for me, is an absolutely needed dimension, a 'thickness' or layerd-ness, to the religious / metaphysical .... in which I move more naturally & perhaps too easily. Hope you can get hold of a copy of the essay in question.Regards, Judith I'lljumpin,David,thoughfromthepointofviewofmyownpreoccupations.Backin1987,Iarguedthatthenotionofprojection,specificallyintermsofthepatientprojectingsomethingintotheanalystwhichtheanalystexperiencedbutknewwaspartofthepatient'spsyche,wasnotsound.TheLatinverbproiceremeanstohurlacross,andappliestothethrowingofajavelin.Hence,asidefromanunfriendlyetymology,projectiondependsonthenotionofemptyspacebetweenhumans.Doessuchanemptyspaceexist?isthistheonlygrounduponwhichtoconceiveofhumanrelations?Thereareothermetaphorsandtheoriestoconsider.AndIspentalotoftimelaterinthe1990ssayingthatthenotionofemptyspacewassuchaproblembecauseofitsprofoundlyapoliticalnature.(ThePluralPsyche,pp.143‐174,andThePoliticalPsyche,pp.267‐286).Asfarasanimismisconcerned,Ithinkthere'sasocialaspectinthatinstitutionsandorganisationshavea'lifeoftheirown'.Irealisevitalismisn'tthesameasanimismbutIthinktherearelinks.(Ifthishascomeupbefore,Iapologise,butIhaven'tbeenabletokeepupwiththediscussion.)ThereferencewouldPoliticsontheCouch,pp.64‐66.Ican'trememberwhoitwaswhowroteofthe'sensuousnessofthings'.Lastly,oneofmyteachers,JoeRedfearn,wroteapaperonsomethinglike'Whenarepersonsthingsandthingspersons?'.IknowI'vegotthetitlenotquiterightbutthere'llbeaJAPreaderwhowillknow.Now,apersonalnote.Iapplaudandadmirethesheercareyouaretakinginconductingthisseminar.Thelayoutofyourreplies,thefootnotesandsoforth,iswaybeyondwhatoneusuallygetsonline.Remindsmeofwhatwe'vemissedonthislist.Andrew

52DearDavidandall,Iappreciatetheconversationsyou’veinitiatedsofar.Iespeciallylikethetalkaboutthelimitsoftheconceptof“projection”andtheideathattheconceptof“stages”ofdevelopmentmaybeabletobereplacedwiththeideaof“modesofconsciousness.”Iwonderifwhatwehaveproblematicallycalled“projection”mightinpartbemoreaccuratelybethoughtofastheinteractionbetweenmodesofconsciousness?Further,thatthisinteraction,withallofitsbumpiness,grinding,andseemingdistressthatweareinclineto“treat”reflectsthewaythemodesofconsciousnessareinclinetorelatetoeachother(possiblyatelicrelationship?).Fromthisperspectivethepossibilityofa“reanimation”oftheworldmightbetakingplacethroughthis“transformational”or“emergent”relationshipbetweenthemodesofconsciousness,whichmightbeadescriptionoftheactivityofthe“transcendentfunction”or“objectivepsyche.”Thismightimplythattheriseofthemodernindividuatedsubjectisanexpressionoftheobjectivityofpsyche;however,notattheexpenseofreducingtheearlier“collective”psychetosomethinglessobjective.Rather,withbothbeingexpressionsoftheobjectivepsychecouldwesaythatthe“telos”ofeachistheemergent“postmodern”modeofconsciousness?Also,whenWilhelmDiltheysaysthat“intoeachnewhomewemusttaketheoldgodswithus”Ithinkheisreflectingontheobjectivityoftherelationshipbetweenmodesofconsciousnesswithintheobjectivepsyche.AnapplicationofthisisinbothyoursandAndrew’sworkinwhichwhatyouarecallingthe“postmodern”modeofconsciousnessmaybeattemptingtore‐enchantourexperiencebychallengingthe“modernself”tocomeoutofitsshellbackintothesocialfabric.Justwonderingaboutwherethethoughtgoes,PeterT.DunlapDearall,Ihavebeenmullingovervariousstrainsofthoughtthathavebeenexpressedsofarinthisseminar.Thefirstconcernsprojections.Therearesomeproblemswiththenotionofprojection,nottheleastofwhichisthatitincorporatesaninappropriatephysicalfantasy‐‐thatofasortofthrowerejectingorprojectingsomethingintotheworldlikeajavelinorafootball.Giegerichpointsthisoutin"Theleapafterthethrow:On'catchingupwithprojectionsandtheoriginofpsychology,"TheNeurosisofPsychology(Spring2005).Butliteralistfantasiesaboundinpsychology‐"objectrelations,"anyone?‐anddon'tnecessarilyinvalidatethephenomenawhichtheyaddress.Ithinkthisisthecasewithprojections.

53Recently,Iheardawonderfulrabbinicalsaying:"Wedon'tseethingsthewaytheyare.Weseethingsthewayweare."Blakeputitevenmoresuccinctly:"Asamanis,sohesees."Thesewisestatementsseemmuchmorepsychologicallyapt.Weseethingsthewayweare.Thus,theworkofsay,objectrelationstherapytograduallyremovethecloudofasuboptimalhistoryfromone'slifeandrelationships.Thishas,tomymind,clearparallelswithvariousEasternspiritualdisciplinesthegoalofwhichistoenableatrueseeingoftheworld.Itis,broadlyspeaking,theworkof"withdrawingprojections."Thisbegsthequestion:whathappenswhenalltheprojectionsarewithdrawnoralltheharmfulobjectrelationshealed?(Forthepurposesofteasingofthetheory,wecanaskthisquestionevenifsuchenlightenedstatesrarely,ifever,occur.)Ofcourse,theworldalwaysmustremainenchantedtotheextenthumansarespiritualbeings.Whoknows,andwhocares,whatalandscapeisinandofitself?Alandscapealwayspresupposesa"see‐er"andifweseethingsthewayweare,andifwearespiritualbeings,thennoamountofwithdrawnprojectionswilleraseourspirituality,oursoulfulnessandtheworldweinhabitwillremainanimatedbythis.Becausehumansareinherentlysoulful,somustbeourworld.Bestwishes,DanDear Maryann, Jerome and all, I have been following along the discussion. David I’m glad you are continuing with this presentation. I have taken the liberty of enclosing a recent list of textbooks some of which include addictions research, - including online addictions. (What ‘animation’ are so many desperate for? www.lb.ca/psych Jung (CW7)is writing about the psychological concomitants of the World War – and the problem of the chaotic unconscious which slumbers uneasily beneath the ordered world of consciousness. (Jung explores further, and for the rest of his life as far as I can make out the need for the individual to return to the” ground of human nature”, to digest ‘neurosis’. Interestingly very early Jung recognized the order buried in chaos – that contemporary ‘ chaos theory’ seems to take for granted.) I find that Jung is distilling his insights regarding so called ‘causality’. In chapter I on Psychoanalysis he is writing about the first move toward neurosis coming from the Charcot school at the Salpetriere in Paris. As you say he considered that the old theory regarding the ‘causality’ of (hysteria) no longer adequate. (Much clarification has gone on here especially in the last 40 years. We have been using the term sexual abuse, incest and so on. Though I notice that in the past few years ‘everything’ seems to be about ‘trauma’.) His footnote clearly shows he is NOT dismissing the trauma of war.

54 In his second chapter Jung elaborated something about the’ fabulous’ nature of Eros – nothing here to do with splitting into gender biases which seemed to have crossed into the Jungian field causing much confusion. What I understand Jung to be driving at is that in both the fields of incest and War is of loss of connection to a felt relationship and harmonizing with nature...and that at the heart of these human horrors is the “rebellion of the part of the animal nature that thirsts for freedom”. On the other hand, in both ‘fields’ Eros, - as hinted through the wise Diotima to Socrates (Jung reminds us), - lies hidden in the rubble. This results in what Jung calls neurosis and which he addresses through so much of his alchemy work. This is where I find resonance with Jerome Bernstein’s letter: For those of you who have my book, Living in the Borderland: The Evolution of Consciousness and the Challenge of Healing Trauma see pp. 160-161 for an example of what I am trying to portray here.) Language is an enormous problem here and "translation" does not usually suffice to convey their experience. The Navajo word for what I am addressing here translates to "Beauty" (the capital B is important here). The Navajo word for Beauty in this sense is Hozho which also conveys such (western) concepts as balance, harmony, resonance, at-one-ness, healing, completeness, wholeness...not only in the earthly realm but in the cosmos as a whole. I find Jerome’s book enormously rich in exploring the psychological nuances of addressing the wounding of only living within a binary world and language. Sincerely, Evangeline RandDearDanandall,CertainlyBlakeisright,"asmanis,sohesees."However,thisdoesnotmeanthatwe(hu)mansarereducedto'subjectivity',thatwedonotexperiencetheworldthewayit'is'.Infact,itmaybethattheuseoftheideaof'subjectivity'as'flawed'isitselfflawed,ahang‐overfromthetimewhenitwasoncenecessarytofocusallofourattentionontryingtocreateawayofspeakingoutsideofreligioustraditionsthatshowedawayforustofindsomemodicumoftrustworthinessinourexperience.ThusDescartesdodgedmostofourexperienceandfound"clearanddistinctideas"insidehisownprimaryintuitioninordertobuildthelanguageofRationalism,whichLockefollowedbyclaimingevenmoreofourexperiencecouldbetrustedwithhisdivisionofprimaryandsecondaryideasleadingtohislanguageofEmpiricism.InturnI'mprettysurethisleadtotheideathatwecouldtrustourexperienceifweheldstilllongenough(i.e.,thespectatortheoryofknowledge).Ithinkthisispartoftheroot

55systemoftheideathatsubjectivityisflawed.Whatifwe'vegonefarenoughinthisdirectionandarenowinapositionofreinvestinginoursubjectivity?Certainlyneruo‐scienceandaffecttheoryhavebeenclearinggroundaroundthetrustworthinessofouremotionalexperience,whichJohnBeebehascapturedwiththeinterestingideaof"objectivesympathy."And,IthinkthisheadsinaninterestingdirectionforwhichJungmaystillbeoneoftheleaders.Forallofthetalkabouthimhavingtwoepistemologies,whichhasmerit,Isuspectthatheactuallywaswellonhiswaytodifferentiatingalanguagethatwasquietepistemologicallyconsistent.Withinthislanguagehewasusingtheideaof'subjectivity'outsideofthemodernframeofsubjective‐as‐flawedandusingitwithinanewframethathassubstantialphilosophicalroots(forgivemeRobertifIreturntoJohnDeweywhomyoumaycorrectlythinkisoutdated)whetherJunggraspedthisphilosophyanditsepistemologycompletelyornot.Whatifwehadtogiveupthenotionthatsubjectivityisflawed?Whatif,followingPeterReason'sActionInquiryasoneofmany,subjectivityleadstoobjectivitythroughwhatReasoncalls“criticalsubjectivity?”Jungwasclearlygoinginthisdirectionwhenhewrote:Nowhereisthebasicrequirementsoindispensableasinpsychologythattheobservershouldbeadequatetohisobject,inasenseofbeingabletoseenotonlysubjectivelybutalsoobjectively…Therecognitionandtakingtheheartofthesubjectivedeterminationofknowledge…isfulfilledonlywhentheobserverissufficientlyinformedaboutthenatureandscopeofhisownpersonality.Hecan,however,besufficientlyinformedonlywhenhehasinlargemeasurefreedhimselffromthelevelinginfluenceofcollectiveopinionsandtherebyarrivedataclearconceptionofhisownindividuality(JungVol.6,1971,9‐10).Ithinktheimplicationsofthisaresubstantialandiffollowedwouldleadtoauseoflanguagethatwouldradicallyshiftsomeofourconversations.Anythoughts?PeterT.DunlapDearDan,Youwritebeautifullyhere,andIwouldbetemptedtoagreewithyou,butsomethingholdsmebackfromdoingsowholeheartedly.Inadvertently,IthinkRoberthaspointedoutwhy(inhisusualdirectmanner)‐Blakeandtherabbiwhosesayingyouquote(interestingly,bothofwhomwouldpresumablyinhabitverydifferentspiritualworlds)dopointtoanimportantspiritualtruth,whichinJesus'wordshasbeenexpressedas"blessedarethepureinheart,fortheyshallseeGod"(Mt5:8).ButifGodisleftoutoftheequation,orifallreligionsandideologiesareplacedalongsideeachotheranddeemedequallytruthful,itistemptingtoconcludethatEVERYvisionissimplyaresultofthephenomenonofpsychologicalprojection;"asamanis,sohesees"‐thisisthestrengthandweaknessofthepsychologicalapproach.Strengthin

56theconsultingroomperhapstosomeextent,butdefinitelyaweaknessintheobservatory;andIwouldaddhereeveninchurch,whereitisotherwiseacknowledgedthat,f.e.ittakesasainttoseeasaint,andwhereweareaskedto"firstremovethebeam"fromourowneye(Mt.7:5),thegoalisneverthelesstoarriveatobjectivity.AsRobertpointsout,thesundoesnotinfactmovearoundtheearthassciencehasshown,anditisequallypossiblethatcertainvisionsofrealityareclosertotruththanothersinspirituallife.ContrarytowhatJoelhasrecentlyargued(ifIrecallcorrectly),religionisnotanescapeintofantasyorwishfulthinking,butanattempttoseerealitymoreclearly,whethersuccesfulornot.Youarerightperhaps,thatnoamountofwithdrawnprojectionwilleraseourspirituality,butisn'titalsotruethat'wearewhatweeat'(Feuerbach)?Isitrighttoeatuprevealeddogma,inthenameofwithdrawingprojections?Whathappenstopeoplewhentheyconsumesuchthings?Noteverythingissubjective,butthemethodsofsciencecannotdiscloseeverythingthatisobjectiveeither‐andtheextremestouch.AsG.K.Chestertonhaspointedout,"whenpeoplestopbelievinginGod,theydon'tbelieveinnothing‐‐theybelieveinanything",whetherthat'anything'isthescientificmethod,Jungianpsychology(orHillmanian,orGiegerichian(?soundsArmenian)),orevenreligion,whenitisthrustonothersinafundamentalistandintolerantway,whichtomesuggeststhatitsmessagehasbeendistortedsomewhere,thatsomethingbasictogenuinespiritualityhasbeenleftout.BestregardsByronDan, I understand the humane impulse of your contribution, but that position would effectively dispossess me of all the distress, of body & spirit, the hard work, and years of intense thinking, for ... well - for much more than half a lifetime."Who knows, and who cares, what a landscape is in and of itself? " I do, for one. Exchange “landscape” for “person” – and more people would see clearly, that it matters a good deal. We may never adequately know “what s/he is in and of him/herself”, but from a “Who knows, and who cares…” position, where is the love of truth? Not to mention, love of the person? Spirit exercised without the powers of discrimination either dwindles, or is extremely dangerous. Education is not for nothing. Disciplines such as science, mathematics, history, literature, etc. give us, or should give us, valuable criteria of discrimination, within different disciplines, from which to start. (E.g. "The sun [does not] revolves around the earth ...") Blake put it even more succinctly: "As a man is, so he sees." These wise statements seem much more psychologically apt. We see things the way we are. Indeed so. But “the way we are” encompasses, includes, all our intellectual and loving search into “what a landscape [or person] is in and for itself”. Blake’s life and work (as an artistic & poetic visionary)

57are his full testament on this. Wordsworth’s poem Ode: Intimations of Immortality is a testament to ultimate care of “what a landscape is in and of itself”. Not to mention the vast body of prose works - scientific, philosophical, historical…. all devoted to discovering “what [a thing] is in and of itself”. As for Jung, his perspective is well summarised in: "A full participation of consciousness is an essential precondition for the intervention of the transcending function." (Stephenson Bond) "Transcendence", i.e. enchantment, is not so readily come by, even if, thank God, sudden glimpses of beauty do catch us unawares from time to time. But really - how often does the experience of 'enchantment', or the world as full of soul, "intervene" with "full participation of consciousness" ? ... I mean, as distinct from the reverse? So - I think this is a topic highly worthy of discussion. If we had, as the anceints tried to establish, a schema in which the different disciplines knew their place, their limits, their specific kinds of knowledge ... a "division of the sciences" .... discussion might be less frustrating. But perhaps less beguiling? All good wishes, Judith DearAll,TodayIcameuponthisofJung’sfrom1939(CW11§760ff).Iwillquoteitatlengthasitissorelevanttothisdiscussion:“ThedevelopmentofWesternphilosophyduringthelasttwocenturieshassucceededinisolatingthemindinitsownsphereandinseveringitfromitsprimordialonenesswiththeuniverse.Manhimselfhasceasedtobethemicrocosmandeidolonofthecosmos,andhis"anima"isnolongertheconsubstantialscintilla,orsparkoftheAnimaMundi,theWorldSoul...Psychology...holdsthatthemindcannotestablishorassertanythingbeyonditself.If,then,weaccepttherestrictionsimposeduponthecapacityofourmind,wedemonstrateourcommonsense.Iadmititissomethingofasacrifice,inasmuchaswebidfarewelltothatmiraculousworldinwhichmind‐createdthingsandbeingsmoveandlive.Thisistheworldoftheprimitive,whereeveninanimateobjectsareendowedwithaliving,healing,magicpower,throughwhichtheyparticipateinusandweinthem.Soonerorlaterwehadtounderstandthattheirpotencywasreallyours,andthattheirsignificancewaswasourprojection.Thetheoryofknowledgeisonlythelaststepoutofhumanity'schildhood,outofaworldwheremind‐createdfigurespopulatedametaphysicalheavenandhell....[Man]hasonlytorealizethatheisshutupinsidehismindandcannotstepbeyondit,evenininsanity;andthattheappearanceofhisworldorofhisgodsverymuchdependsuponhisownmentalcondition.[Mind]hasbecomeamoreorlessindividualizedaffair,withnotraceofitsformercosmicaspectastheanimarationalis.Mindisunderstoodnowadaysasasubjective,evenanarbitrary,thing.Nowthattheformerlyhypostatized"universalideas"haveturnedouttobementalprinciples,itisdawninguponustowhatanextentourwholeexperienceofso‐calledrealityispsychic;asamatteroffact,everythingthought,felt,orperceived

58isapsychicimage,andtheworlditselfexistsonlysofarasweareabletoproduceanimageofit.”ThisisaverystarkexampleofJungathismostdisenchanted.Italsomakesveryclearthatthisdisenchantmentderivesfromaparticularepistemologicalstance:‘themindcannotestablishorassertanythingbeyonditself’.ThismuchderivesfromJung’sunderstandingofKant.Buthegoesfurther:Manis,hesays,‘shutupinsidehismind’.ThisstrikesastronglyCartesiannote.Hisconclusionisthat‘ourwholeexperienceofso‐calledrealityispsychic’,‘theworlditselfexistsonlysofarasweareabletoproduceanimageofit.’Thereappearstobenoplaceinthisapproachforanyrecognitionofthepossibleexperienceofunmediatedotherness.Itcouldonlyeverbethe‘so‐called’other.Therewouldbenopossibilityofdistinguishingbetweenanimationexistingoutsidethemind(inwhichweare‘shutup’),andanimationexistinginsidethemind.Therewouldonlyeverbethepsychicimage.Psychethusbecomesall.Itwouldseemthatthepricepaidformakingpsychologythequeenofsciencesis,inasense,thewholeworld.NowifJungisstatingin1939that‘theworlditselfexistsonlysofarasweareabletoproduceanimageofit’butitisalsosomehowtruethat,asDavidputsit,“thebottomlineforJungisnotpsyche"inhere"butpsycheintheworlditself”thisleavesuswithaproblem.IfwereadthisasJungrealisingthesolipsistictraphehasmadeforhimselfandtryingtoextricatehimselffromit,thenthenextquestionis,whathappenstohisdogmaticinsistenceonthepriorityofthepsychicimage?Howcanthatbemaintainedifhisbottomlineispsycheintheworlditself?Orisitjustintheso‐calledworlditself?BestwishesMarkDear Mark and All, this is a real find, thanks for that. Yes, it is completely relevant to this discussion. It is odd, however, to see Jung having a bob each way, as the British like to say about hedging bets. That is, he argues that the anima mundi or world soul is important, and needs to be recognized, but in the same passage - almost in the same breath - he comes back with his familiar Cartesian line about the psyche being subjective and "inside" the human being. Jung is torn on this point, and can never seem to make up his mind. He needed, in my view, to submit these ideas to further theorizing, and not to contradict himself at every turn. He need only have said, I believe, that the "psyche" from which "projections" come is not merely human. Our psyche is our internal experience of a psyche which is beyond the human, and therefore not everything that comes from our psyche can be said to emerge from us. Hillman is much clearer on this point, and part of his genius is to have made this area clear, but Jung's thinking is muddy around these important issues. It is little wonder that eco-psychologists today are unsure whether Jung was friend or foe to their cause.

59I agree with you that Jung makes for himself a solipsistic trap, but that he need not have done so, as he had the ability to theorize this in a clearer and more precise way. Indeed, the synchronicity papers show the way out of his own solipsistic trap or cul de sac. A remarkable find, Mark, and thanks indeed for digging it up. David Tacey Brisbane, Queensland. Ihavenotpostedatallbuthavetriedtofollowascloselyasmytimeallowed.Thanksallfortheexcellentdiscussion.Ithinkitishelpfultounderstandthat,forJung,psycheandmindarenotthesame.Sometimesheusetheminterchangeably,thatistrue.ButIoncemadenotesoneveryindexedentryinhispublishedworksonmindandpsyche.Itslowlybecameclearthatwegetfurtherinourunderstandingifwethinkofthemdifferently.Inanutshell,mindisinternalandaplaceofmentalrepresentations(Cartesian"ideas")andpsycheisthepsychologicalworldinwhichweliveourlives.ItriedtodevelopthissystematicallyintheJAPlastyear.Cheerio,RogerBrooke.DearMark,ThankyouforthequotationfromCW11.Inaway,Iwonderwhetheryourquestiononwhattodoaboutthepriorityofthepsychicimageifpsycheisintheworlditself,isn'titselfbasedonatheoryofknowledgewhichprivilegesindividualdiscursivereasonovermorecollectiveandparticipatoryavenuesofexperience?DavidTaceyhasrecentlypointedoutthedistinctionbetweenpersonal(inthesenseofindividual)projectionsand'collectiveprojections',suggestingthatitisperhapsinappropriatetowithdrawthelatter(andtherapeutictowithdrawtheformer).Thiscomesalittleclosertomyownunderstandingofcollectiveandparticipatoryexperiencebeingfoundedonsharedknowledge,whichhasgreaterauthoritythanindividualthought.Jungianpsychologycallsona(reified)UnconsciousasanantidotetothehypertrophiedrationalisticimbalanceitrightlyperceivesinWesternconsciousness;buttheUnconscious/unconsciousis"only"thatpartofconsciousness‐forFreudindividual,forJungindividualandcollective‐whichisnotimmediatelyapparenttotheego.FromanOrthodoxgnoseologicalperspective,thisstillleavesuswithonlyhalfthepictureofreality,becauseapartfromthecreatedego,thereisalsouncreatedDivinity.Ourcommunionwiththisuncreatedrealitytakesplaceinprayerandthroughparticipationinthesacraments,particularlytheEucharist.Thistakesusbeyondourindividualpsychicimageoftheworld,beyondevenpsycheintheworld,andbeyondthe"so‐calledworld"ofphenomenology.ThisdebategoesbacktothehesychasticcontroversybetweenStGregoryPalamasandBarlaamofCalabria;thelatterarguedthatmonksshouldusephilosophyasthewaytoknowledge,while

60Palamasinsistedthatwhatisessentialisprayeroftheheart(pleasenotethatthisisnotavariationonthethemeofhead/heartpolarity,thereismuchmoreatstake).Ofcourse,objectionswillarisethatthisisafaithperspective,not'science',butIfinditdifficulttoimaginepsychologyasa'queenofsciences'Mark;Iseehermoreasthebag‐ladyofsciences,collectingassortedtheoriesinhertrolleyandputtingonthemaskofascientificpersona‐Jungisaprimeexample‐towhitewashthosetheoriesinpapersandconferences.Nevertheless,Iacknowledgetheroyaldignityofbagladiesasmuchasthatofblue‐bloodiedsovereigns!Ijustthinkthisdignitywouldbemoreapparentifthemaskwereremoved.MaybeI'mjustadisenchantedmodern,afterall.:‐)BestregardsByronDearByron,Joel,Leslieandall,Byron,yourreligiousperspectiveishelpfulhere.IseeJung’spsychologyasspecificallygearedtowardthosewhohavenoaccesstothefaithyoudescribesowell,i.e.theheirsofadisenchantedworld.InmyunderstandingJungwantstosuggestthatwemodernsarenotsodisenchantedafterall,becausewehaveaccesstotheenchantedrichesoftheunconscious,ifonlywecanfindaccesstoit.Hetakesthefurtherstepofsuggesting,inthisquotationatleast,thatthisisnotjustaconsolationprizebutisinfactthethingitselfafterall,(“Soonerorlaterwehadtounderstandthattheirpotencywasreallyours,andthattheirsignificancewaswasourprojection”)inotherwordsitwasneveroutintheworldanyway,butalwaysinourunconscious.Asyourightlypointout,theaspectthatgetslostalongtheway(oroneofthem)isthatofcommunalparticipationinasharedexperienceoftheworld.Youmentionthe‘socalledworld’ofphenomenology.Mytakeisthatthephenomenologicalapproachavoidspreciselythisproblemof‘socalledworlds’.Attheriskofcrudelyoversimplifying,phenomenologyoffersavisionofbeingintheworldwhichisradicallyunmediated:whenweseethetreewedon’tsee‘ourimageofthetreewhichmayormaynotcoincidewiththerealtree’.Wejustseethetree.AsHusserlputsit,“Backtothethingsthemselves!”HadJungutilisedaphenomenologicalapproachhemighthaveavoidedthekindofsolipsistictrapwehaveidentified.JoelandLeslie,re‘theearthmoves’,Itoccurstomewhatwehavehereisagoodexampleofanantinomialposition:forusasmodernwesternersitissimultaneouslytruenotonlythatthesunrisesinthewestandgoesdownintheeast,butalsothattheearthmovesaroundthesun.Theseareincompatibletruthsbutweholdthemboth.BestwishesMarkDearRoger;

61Ican'tgetthatissueofJAPuntilnextmonth,whenit'savailableon‐line.Ididreadtheabstract.Soitcouldverywellbethatyouanswermyquestionswithinyourpiece.Forexample:Howdowedistinguishmentalrepresentations(Ialmostwroteprojections)from"thepsychologicalworldinwhichweliveourlives."?(Itremindsmeofsoul/Soul.Or,inBuddhism,mind/Mind.)Also,doesn'tphenomenologyseektoerasethemind/psychedichotomyasyoustateitbysoakinguptheatmosphere?Best,JoelDear David, and Mark, etc.,From George Hogenson 'Archetypes' (Analytical Psychology ed. Cambray & Carter) - I note what seems to me fair comment (not unlike Jung's own remark, somewhere): "A theory of archetypes must give rise to a viable theory of symbolization that satisfies the demands of the clinical setting, ... The first rule of truly scientific investigation is to preserve the phenomena. Jung struggled to get the phenomena to be clear enough that theory-building could take place. At times he clearly missed the mark, ... but if one is to engage Jung at all, one must begin by taking seriously the effort he was engaged in to bring the symbol to life in the lives of his patients ... "This may give useful perspective on: "having a bob each way", tand including, but not exclusively, "hisdogmaticinsistenceonthepriorityofthepsychicimage".? Regards, Judith DearMarkandall,Mark,thankyouforacknowledgingthatareligiousperspectivecanbehelpfultothisdebate.WeappeartoagreethattheJungian(Jung's)perspectiveontheneedtowithdrawprojectionisperhapsoverlyindividualistic,notpayingenoughattentiontothecollectiveaspectofsharedexperience.Itseemsaromantic,19thcenturywayoflookingatlife.IdoseethatJung,amongpsychologicalpioneers,triedtopointtoenchantmentwithinthemodernperson;buthis'offer'ofthe"richesoftheunconscious"as"thethingitselfafterall"seemstomeincompleteandinadequate,notonlybecause‐asDavidsuggests‐Jungfailedtoemphasizethatthepsychewasmorethanhuman,butalsobecausehefailedtoemphasizethatitisalsomorethancosmos.Theunconsciousisthe'otherside'ofconsciousness,butbothopenouttowardstheuncreated,not‐of‐this‐earth.IthinkthisisalsowhytheJungianuseof(Otto's)'numinous'lacksthegenuinemysteriumtremendumevokedbytheWhollyOther,focusingasitdoesonsubjectiveemotion.Itakeyourpointaboutphenomenology,andhearHillman's"sticktotheimage!"behindHusserl's"backtothethingsthemselves!".Bothapproachesareofcourseinvaluablyimportantforanyseriousanalysisofsubjectivityandtheintersubjective.ThereasonIrefer,however,tothe"so‐calledworlds"ofphenomenology,isbecause

62howeverrichlywedescribewhatthemindperceivesasphenomena,wewillstillonlyhaveaccesstothecontentsofourownperceptions,nottheessenceofthesephenomena‐inotherwords,wewillbedescribingthepsychicimage.Jung,viaaHegelianphenomenologyofspirit,endedupidolizingthepsyche,absolutizingthehumanspirit,andindeedrenderingittheonlyavenuebywhichDivinitymaycometorealiseitself.IthinkJungprobablysensedthis,andtriedtoexitthesolipsistictrapthroughnotionswhichchallengethe'inhere'paradigmofprojection,suchassynchronicityandtheunusmundus,butevensoitremainsamundushopelesslycoopedupinitself....Haveaniceweekend,ByronDear David, Lesley and all, I so appreciate the phrase of Jung’s you included, David: the vast confusion that reigns at the roots of life. It was precisely this issue that I thought Maryanne’s reference highlighted and to which I responded, linking trauma (War and incest) with a buried Eros: Jung’s prefaces. The first one in this volume was written in Dec.1916, the next one Oct. 1918 and so on. In the first one Jung is writing about the psychological concomitants of the World War – and the problem of the chaotic unconscious which slumbers uneasily beneath the ordered world of consciousness. (Jung explores further, and for the rest of his life as far as I can make out the need for the individual to return to the” ground of human nature”, to digest ‘neurosis’. Interestingly very early Jung recognized the order buried in chaos – that contemporary ‘ chaos theory’ elaborates. ) Jung goes on to ask where is the mighty Eros in this muddle? The question is certainly alive today! The difficulty of learning to actually ‘see’/ etc. is how Jung sometimes describes the process of individuation. And yes, David, how to surrender to this ‘learning’, and engage with it? Personally, I don’t think we need to ‘animate’ or re-enchant the world. More, I am interested in a capacity to engage and live within what I am ‘seeing’. The care required for looking...details...and the need to explore the art of being willing even NOT to see... leaving some ‘things’ BEYOND our reach/grasp. In this context I have found Randy Malamud’s article (Animals on Film) in the recent Spring (Vol. 83, 2010) most evocative. And Judith, it is in the same volume as Giegerich’s article on the Red Book – which I why I bought this volume too!

63 I find that few people I meet have any idea that there is actually a vitality within them that is more that a surface gush of what I am calling now ‘the wow factor’ that seems to blanket the person’s ‘essential’ ‘way’ of living. In connection with this I have been re-reading Sean Mc.Grath (Dept. Of Philosophy, Memorial University Newfoundland, Canada) article in our International Journal of Jungian Studies, Vol 2 No.1. March 2010 pp 1 – 20. I am not referring above to being trapped in ‘subjectivization’...I am connecting it more with what Mc.Grath is calling for – a fullscale reconstruction of Jung’s relationship to Western esoteric traditions. (Footnote 2) This need rings true for me... Actually the whole Journal issue is germane to our present topic. I wonder if ‘our’ academics feel their work is actually being read and related to? Our list hardly seems to refer the the scholars who are actually contributing to IAJS. Perhaps I am looking in all the wrong places...and heavens only knows how hard it is to ‘be’ ‘current’. Yes, Lesley I think both statements about the sun are true! The experience of always seeing the sun in ‘this and that’ position is (or at least , used to be, part the experience of living in a cosmos, with feet on the ground. What has gone missing is ‘us in a cosmos’, perhaps.... Best wishes, Evangeline Rand Dearall,Ihavebeenmullingovervariousstrainsofthoughtthathavebeenexpressedsofarinthisseminar.Thefirstconcernsprojections.Therearesomeproblemswiththenotionofprojection,nottheleastofwhichisthatitincorporatesaninappropriatephysicalfantasy‐‐thatofasortofthrowerejectingorprojectingsomethingintotheworldlikeajavelinorafootball.Giegerichpointsthisoutin"Theleapafterthethrow:On'catchingupwithprojectionsandtheoriginofpsychology,"TheNeurosisofPsychology(Spring2005).Butliteralistfantasiesaboundinpsychology‐"objectrelations,"anyone?‐anddon'tnecessarilyinvalidatethephenomenawhichtheyaddress.Ithinkthisisthecasewithprojections.Recently,Iheardawonderfulrabbinicalsaying:"Wedon'tseethingsthewaytheyare.Weseethingsthewayweare."Blakeputitevenmoresuccinctly:"Asamanis,sohesees."Thesewisestatementsseemmuchmorepsychologicallyapt.Weseethingsthewayweare.Thus,theworkofsay,objectrelationstherapytograduallyremovethecloudofasuboptimalhistoryfromone'slifeandrelationships.Thishas,tomymind,clearparallelswithvariousEasternspiritualdisciplinesthegoalofwhichistoenableatrueseeingoftheworld.Itis,broadlyspeaking,theworkof"withdrawingprojections."

64Thisbegsthequestion:whathappenswhenalltheprojectionsarewithdrawnoralltheharmfulobjectrelationshealed?(Forthepurposesofteasingofthetheory,wecanaskthisquestionevenifsuchenlightenedstatesrarely,ifever,occur.)Ofcourse,theworldalwaysmustremainenchantedtotheextenthumansarespiritualbeings.Whoknows,andwhocares,whatalandscapeisinandofitself?Alandscapealwayspresupposesa"see‐er"andifweseethingsthewayweare,andifwearespiritualbeings,thennoamountofwithdrawnprojectionswilleraseourspirituality,oursoulfulnessandtheworldweinhabitwillremainanimatedbythis.Becausehumansareinherentlysoulful,somustbeourworld.Bestwishes,DanDear Roger; I can't get that issue of JAP until next month, when it's available on-line. I did read the abstract. So it could very well be that you answer my questions within your piece. For example: How do we distinguish mental representations (I almost wrote projections) from "the psychological world in which we live our lives."? (It reminds me of soul/Soul. Or, in Buddhism, mind/Mind.) Also, doesn't phenomenology seek to erase the mind/psyche dichotomy as you state it by soaking up the atmosphere? Best, Joel Dear Roger and Joel, Excellent points here. I had suspected a difference between the use of mind and psyche, but had not brought it into my field of thought or enquiry. This might be an important element in clarifying the "muddiness", as I have called it. Please , Roger, give more specific details about your JAP piece on this topic, and I will look it up immediately. Joel, yes, I tend to agree that phenomenology seems to erase this distinction between mind and psyche, although that could merely be my impression as an outsider, as I am not trained or highly skilled in philosophy. But yes, maybe we need to introduce soul/Soul into our discourse, or mind/Mind. That would be one way through - and a very helpful suggestion, I might add. Roger, was your detailed checking in English or in German. That is, were you differentiating between Jung's use of Seele and Psyche ? His essay on the influence of earth on psyche is Seele und Erde in German, which ends up as Mind and Earth in the English Collected Works. But I am not sure that this is the correct translation of Jung's German. He seems, in

65this (in)famous essay (where he refers to measurements of the skull in Americans), to be discussing psyche rather than mind. best wishes David Brisbane, Queensland. DearMatt,Inevermeantomisconstruediscussants,sosorrythatIhavedonesoinyo=urcase.Iappreciateyouragreeingwithmethattermsneedtobedefinedprecisely.=ImyselfhaveneversaidthatTylor'sdefinitionofANIMISMorOtto'so=fNUMINOSITYisdefinitive.Ihavesaidonlythatthosewhowanttooffer=newmeaningsoftermsshouldatleastgetstraightontheoldmeanings.=OtherwisewegetintothestatethatKuhncallsincommensurability:same=terms,differentmeanings.ForthelasttimemayIexplaintotheassembledthatthe"old"understandi=ngofanimism,whichgoesbacktoTylor,isNOTtheanimationoftheworld.=Thereforetherejectionofanimismbyscience,asDavidTaceyandother=sstatelikealitany,isafalsecharacterizationofbothanimismandscie=nce.IquotebelowtwostatementsfromTacey,whorespondstomeonlyin=respondingtoothers.IscarcelyobjecttohiscallingforaNEWANIMIS=M.IaskonlythattheOLDANIMISMbeproperlycharacterized.Putsummarily,Tylor,whosePRIMITIVECULTUREisthelocusclassicusofold=animism,maintainsthefollowing:(a)religionandsciencealikeobserveanimationinthephysicalworld‐‐tha=tis,observemotion,whichgetsassociatedwithlife.(b)religionandsciencealikeseektoaccountforthatanimation.(c)religionhypothesizes,notobserves,personifiedentities;sciencehyp=othesizesimpersonalprocesses.(d)thepersonifiedentities,or"spiritualbeings,"orgods,neednotresi=deintheworld,sothatthereneednotbe"spiritsinnature."(e)godsarenotimmaterial,sothatthereisnodualism;thereisnodual=ismUNTILscience.(f)godsdonotcontravenenaturallawsbutinsteadpre‐emptthem,sothat=thereisnosupernaturalism.

66Ihavenoideawhat"afluidandmetaphoricalawarenessaboutsoulinthew=orld"means.Butitgetscontrastedto"thearchaicliteralismabout=91s=pirits=92,"whichwearetold"areasecondary,notaprimary,phenomenon.="Myresponse:Tylor'sanimism,farfromdownplayingtheanimationofnatur=e,attemptStoaccountforit.Andsodoesscience.Thereforeletusn=ot,inthenameofanythingnew,proclaimMISSIONACCOMPLISHEDprematurely.OfOtto'suseofNUMINOSITY,Isay,similarly,thatnooneisobligedtode=fertohim.Butatleastrecognizehisusage‐‐ifonlytodismissit.In=sayingthatheiswritingfromaProtestantpointofview,youarerepeati=ngmypoint,whichisthathistermhasbeenrejectedbythefieldofrelig=iousstudiesbecauseofits"ethnocentricity."Jungdoesnotbreakwith=Ottobutfollowshim:JunglovesOtto'sviewofreligionasGodversusth=eworldbecauseitfitssosnuglyJung'sviewofunconsciousversusordinar=yconsciousness.RobertFROMTACEY:Postmodernsciencewillleadusintoanewkindofanimism.Thisseemsiron=icbecauseitwassciencethatdebunkedanimismandaskedustoseeitasa=formoferror.Butpostmodernscienceispreparingtheway,albeitunwitti=ngly,forare‐enchantmentoftheworld.Perhapswecanplotthedevelopmen=tofhumanthoughtinthreestages.Thefirststageisancientenchantment=throughanimismandpantheism.Thesecondismoderndisenchantmentthrough=rationalityandreason.Akeyelementofapost‐rationalenchantmentinvolvesreplacingwithaflu=idandmetaphoricalawarenessaboutsoulintheworld.Theanimatingfactor=wouldnotbeseenassupernatural,butasdeeplynatural.Thenewundersta=ndingisthatspiritisinherentinnature,anddoesnothavetobe=91put=there=92byforcesfromabove.Spiritdoesnotinterveneinthenaturalord=erinanartificialwaybecauseitisalwaysalreadypartofthatorder.Th=usthenewunderstandingofananimateduniverseisneitherdualisticnors=upernatural.Whatisanimism?Ifitis"theattributionofmotionintheworldtoperso=nifiedbeings",asRobertSegalmentionedinarecentOct6email(hisresp=onsetoMatt),thenitmaynotbetherightterm.WhenIdo"fieldwork"o=nAboriginalnativelands,Ialmostneverfeelthattheirworldviewis"ani=matedbypersonifiedbeings".Again,IthinkHillmanisrightwhenhesay=sthatanimismtellsuslessaboutindigenousculturesthanabouttheminds=

67of19thCanthropologistsandwriters.Itseemstomethat"animism"ishowtheEuropeanmindcharacterizes,quite=wronglyandinappropriately,thecosmosofindigenouscultures.Itisthe=Europeanconsciousnessplacingaliteral‐mindedlensonwhatgoesoninth=eculturesoftribalpeoples.Their"personifiedbeings"areasecondary,=notaprimary,phenomenon.DearRobert,Thankyou.Sorryforthedelayofmyresponse.Yourapologyisaccepted.Iappreciateyoureffortstoexaminethesedefinitions,becausetakingsome=ofthesetermsforgrantedseemstohavebecomeincreasinglyproblematici=nthisdiscussion.Wemayevenbefacingsomethingmuddierthanincommensu=rability.Namely,ahidingofgeneralvaluestatementsbehindvagueterms.=Essentially,Davidissaying:"Thereisagoodthing,abetterwayofbei=ngandofrelatingtonature...andthiscanbecalled'NewAnimism'".=Itishardtodisagree.Itisfairlycleartomostpeopletodaythatours=pecieshascreatednumerousnaturalcrisesandthatthesecrisescouldhave=beenavoidedifwehadsimplyadoptedadifferent,morevaluativeattitude=towardnature,environment,andother.MyinitialresponsetoDavid'sessaywastosay,"Let'sfinishbringingthi=sintuitivevaluestatementintofocusbycontextualizingitculturally,ps=ychologically,andscientifically,aswellasspirituallyandmythopoetical=ly."Byinvoking"postmodernscience",IthoughtDavidhadmeantforusto=keepimaginingamorerobustscience,notonelimitedto19thcenturyposi=tivism*inwhichnatureandmatterwerestrippedoftheirinnatecomplexity=andthereforetheirvaluetous(aswetendtoassociatedynamiccomplexit=ywithanimation,agency,andintelligence).Ifeltthatinordertoproce=edinmakingthisfantasyofa"newanimism"viableandlanguagableinmode=rnterms,we(i.e.,Jungiansanddiscussantsonthislistingeneral)would=havetofaceanyfallaciousandprejudicialattitudeswemighthaveabout=science.Wecanhardlyre‐imaginescienceasusefultotheprocessofvalu=atingnatureifweradicallymisunderstandandscapegoatscience.Whatsta=ndsbetweenJungiansandtheimaginationofanature‐valuating"postmodern=science"isourownromanticprejudiceandculturalcomplex."Postmoderns=cience",wemightseeifwechosetolookatsciencetodayinsteadofinth=e19thcentury(wherewelastpaidattentiontoit?),isofcoursealready=movingtowardthevaluationofnaturalecosystemsandcomplexity...and=hasbeendoingsomoreproductivelythanmythopoeticJungianism.*[Bytheway,itisunfairtoblameevenpost‐Enlightenmentsciencefordev=aluingnature.ThisdevaluationwascentraltoearlyChristianitiesandne=oplatonismandrootedinphilosophicalandreligiousideas.Seemedievala=lchemyforapre‐Enlightenmentefforttoimaginea"newanimism"withacom=plexandeven"intelligent"nature.]Myothercontentionwasthatthis"newanimism"wouldbea"shamanic"proje=

68ct.BywhichImeantthatitwouldrequirethoseofusinterestedinpursu=ingittopassthroughakindofidentity‐dissolutionand‐reconstitutiona=ndalsofindafunctionalwayofchannelingmature"heroism".Actingethic=allyandwithsocialandenvironmentalresponsibilityis"heroic".Thatis=,itcouplesego‐sacrificeandempathyfor"otherness"intoaninitiatoryp=assagetoanew,moreresponsibleattitude.Inotherwords,aswriterssom=etimessay,wemust"killourdarlings",ourpreciousbutoutmodedanddysf=unctionalidentityhabits,inordertoactuallyproceedinanyvaluative(a=ndcreative)project.Withoutthisshamanic/heroicattitude,weareleftw=ith(asJungiansmightsay)"puerfantasy"thatboilsoverwithabstractva=luation,butneveractualizesorhasarelationshiporeffectontheobject=ofsupposedvalue.Thatsaid(andImerelyrepeatit,becausenoonehastakenupacounterarg=ument...andDavidhasevenremarkedthat"mostoftheissuesyouraise=inthislongemailhavebeenrespondedtointheensuingdiscussion,andth=ereforedonotneedspecialattention"(10/7),whichiscertainlynottrue)=,Iagreewithyou,Robert,thatitistimewestartinsistingonmoreprec=isedefinitionsinthisdiscussion.Otherwise,whatevermeaningwemightb=espinningherewillfalloutoforbit.RobertlistsTylor'sideasonanimism,andtheyofferusanexcellentplace=tostart(thefirstthreeareeasiertoparse,soI'lllimitmyresponset=othesefornow):(a)religionandsciencealikeobserveanimationinthephysicalworld‐‐tha=tis,observemotion,whichgetsassociatedwithlife.(b)religionandsciencealikeseektoaccountforthatanimation.(c)religionhypothesizes,notobserves,personifiedentities;sciencehyp=othesizesimpersonalprocesses.Regardingthesefirstthreepoints,Ithinkwecanaddthatthe"impersonal=processes"sciencehypothesizes,inpreviouspost‐Enlightenmenteras,were=hypothesizedasrelativelysimplesystems.Thedifferencewithtoday'ssc=ienceisthatthesesystemsarebeingunderstoodasincreasinglycomplex.=Withthisnewlanguagefortalkingabout(andobserving)complexity,weare=beginningtoseestructuralparallelsinallcomplexsystems,notonlytho=sewehadalwaysassumedweremorecomplex,especiallyhumanintelligence.=Thebrainisstructuredlikeacomplexsystem(i.e.,itdevelopsitscompl=exitythroughthemassiveinterrelationshipofrelativelysimplestructural=elementslikecellsandchemicalneurotransmitters;theseelementsareorg=anizedintosubsystems,andthesubsystemsarethenorganizedintolargeri=nterrelatedsystems,etc.).Naturallyemergentecosystemsshowparallelor=ganizationwiththehumanbrain.Infact,allcomplexdynamicsystemshave=substantialstructuralsimilarities.Boththehumanbrainandecosystems=

69evolvedoremergedthroughself‐organizingprinciples(inthecaseoftheb=rain,throughnaturalselection).Thisobservation(whichcomesfromthesciencesandisnotareligiousidea=perse)demandsthatwerethinkourdefinitionsoflifeitself.Here,per=haps,issomefoundationfora"newanimism"whichwillderivefrom"postmo=dernscience".Butthis"postmodernscience"isstillscience.Itstillh=ypothesizesimpersonalprocesses(complexdynamicandadaptivesystems).I=trejects(sinceitdoesnotrequire)"personifiedentities".Itis,essen=tially,naturalistic.BestRegards,MattDearMattandAll,Yousaybelowthatthenewanimismandpostmodernscienceis"naturalistic".Iunderstandwhyyouwouldsaythis,butIstronglydisagree.Itisnotnaturalistic,butsomethingquitedifferent,whichcouldprobablybedescribedbestbytheword"emergentist".TherearequiteafewcontemporaryJungianscholarsworkingonemergencetoday,includingJeanKnoxandJohnClarke,intheLondonarea.IntheUSA,IwouldrecommendJosephCambray'snewbook,Synchronicity:NatureandPsycheinanInterconnectedUniverse(TexasA&M,2009),asthemostcogentanduptodateaccountofwhatJungianPsychologycanmakeofthenewsciencesandtheiropeningtomysteryandconnectedness.Forthoseonthislistaskingaboutpostmodernscience,whatitis,whothekeyauthorsare,etc,pleaseseeCambray'sbook,whichprovidesafulllistofthisfield.Thisbookcanbepurchasedatallgoodbookshops,anditcanalsobedownloadedforfreefromtheTAMUwebsite,ontheaddressIsuppliedtothislistlastyear.Wehavetostopthinkingintermsofthisbinary:natural/supernatural.Contemporarypostmodernthoughthasleftthisfarbehind,andalltheassumptionsthatbothofthemhave.AgoodexplorationofthisisfoundinJung'sessay,"TheRealandtheSurreal"(1933),foundinCWVol.8.Inthisessayhedoessomethingsimilar,whichistotakeup,andreject,bothrealismandsurrealismasadequateterms/paradigmsforexploringpsychicreality.Ofcourse,Jungwaswritingbeforepostmodernsciencecameupwiththeideaofemergenceasahypothesisinphysics,chemistry,biology.Onecouldsayhewaswritingonemergencebeforethetermwasinvented‐hencesomeanomaliesinhisscience.HereIcandonotbetterthanquotebacktoyouwhatJohnDourleywroteonthisliston4October:"Isomuchagreewithyourunderminingofthenatural/supernaturaldistinctionthatstillprevailsinmonotheisticpsychologyandinculturesshapedbythem.Jung'sdiscussionwithBuberandWhitedemonstrateinboxcarlettersthatJungianpsychologysimplydoesnotreducetoa

70natural/supernaturalparadigmandsotoJewish,ChristianorIslamicorthodoxmainstreamimagination.I'veheardtheresponsethatthisislesstrueoftheirmysticaltraditionsbutifsoitisonlybecausethemysticsthemselvesareclosertotheunconsciousasthesolesourceofreligiousexperience.YouarequiterightinaffirmingthatwecannotgohometoanyoftheseoptionsafterJung."Let'smoveonfromnaturalistic/supernaturalisticandexplorethenewoptionsofferedbyscience.It'snotgoodenoughjusttosaywehavenotreadthisscience;wehavetofindtimetoreadit,asitisthewayforwardinmyview.regards,DavidDearColleagues,ByinvitingDavidtodotheinaugurallaunchofIssuesinJungianPsychology(Danshouldalsotakeabowforthis),IwantedtobringourscholarlydiscussionsbacktoJungwithascholar,whothoughnotaclinician,isoneofthemosthighlyrespectedscholarswithseniormembersoftheInternationalAssociationofAnalyticalPsychologists.Areturntotherootsandwell‐springoftheIAJSwithoneofits’founders.David,whoisonandoffairplanesoflateandnursingacold,hasaskedmeto“thankthosewhohavemadeusefulandinsightfulcontributions.”WherewouldIstart?IwouldstartwiththeECofcourse!DanandMarkhavemadetremendouscontributions,ashaveLeslieandJoel.ThereisalsoJudith,Evangeline,Matt,Byron,Peter,Paivi,Guy,Steven,RayaandRobert.ParticularthankstoJerome,Roger,andJohnD.IfI’veleftanyoneout,pleaseacceptmyapologyforanyinaccuracy.AbigmetaphoricalbottleofchampagneandbouquettoallandtoDavidTacey.Onward,Maryann