I am confused OP are you saying the two artciles you link to suggest Jung was nuts. have not read them yet. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 57499011
are you also saying it was You who had vision of jung and patient and the beetle? This did no actually happen to Jung. Because on another thread just recently you posted about the red book and mentioned the beetle story as if it was something that happened to Jung.
Finally, what is the purpose of this thread. what information are you trying to communicate? what is new about it? what Is your background, experience to deliver suchinformation.
thank you and happy new year
His point is that the father of what we call Psychology may have been as nutty as a fruit bat and all following teachings may be wrong and pushing snake oil off as cures.
lol! That's funny!
I hope that you aren't saying that Oracle'sCookie believes
that these 2 articles I've quoted are CORRECT in their
assessment of Carl Jung? No...I do NOT agree with the
articles and would never say that Jung was "disturbed"
other than maybe "world-weary" for what he had witnessed in his long life.
I put the articles up there just to show how VASTLY off
the mark people who do critical analysis of someone's
writing/artwork can be WITHOUT KNOWING THE CONTEXT of the
subject! Jung had important information about certain
past history (mainly the catastrophe of 9,500 b.c.) as early as the 1920's. This was well before the announcements by Immanuel Velikovsky about his discoveries.
Jung reportedly "received" this information through various dreams and a vision (see Post #2) during a particularly stressful voyage back to his home in Switzerland from Scotland as WWI was just breaking out.
He claims the "vision" lasted a full 2 hours and made him extremely fearful of what he had seen. He drew many paintings about this even, as well as the one with the scarab beetle in "The Red Book." These were NOT symbolic but actual renderings of REAL THINGS Jung actually saw or experienced!