GetReligion.org - GetReligion » “The press . . . just doesn’t get religion.” — William Schneider
member of beliefnet's blogheaven

Recent Posts

Who’s offended? | When Lutherans split | All (Catholic) news is local (and modern) | Holy high holidays! | Teletubbies and … Islam? | Cutesy phrases aside | Westboro’s swing at anti-Semitism | ‘Road’ campaign markets apocalypse | Palin’s pastor meets the press | Catholics: racist, sexist and all wrong | 2009 Archive >


Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Posted by Steve Rabey

jung2Mao had his little red book. Meanwhile, the influential Swiss psychiatrist and thinker Carl Jung had is own big red book. The only problem was that nobody outside a small circle of descendants and initiates had been able to see the century-old book since Jung’s death in 1961. Until now. (Amazon is taking orders for the just-published $195 book for $114.07.)

In her New York Times Magazine piece, “The Holy Grail of the Unconscious,” Sara Corbett tells an 8,000-word-plus story about the book, its origins, its decades in hiding and its eventual publication. Along the way, provides more thrills and explores more mysteries than many readers will find a carton of Dan Brown novels. Corbett also shows how the red book (also known as “Liber Novus,” Latin for “New Book”) links Jung’s “science” and his “spirituality.”

Whether or not he would have wanted it this way, Jung—who regarded himself as a scientist—is today remembered more as a countercultural icon, a proponent of spirituality outside religion and the ultimate champion of dreamers and seekers everywhere, which has earned him both posthumous respect and posthumous ridicule. Jung’s ideas laid the foundation for the widely used Myers-Briggs personality test and influenced the creation of Alcoholics Anonymous. His central tenets—the existence of a collective unconscious and the power of archetypes—have seeped into the larger domain of New Age thinking while remaining more at the fringes of mainstream psychology.

The article also illuminates the conflicts between Jung’s devoted followers, some of whom revere him as a near-deity, and his cautious family members, who had prohibited publication of the book out of concerns it might cast a negative light on its author.

Corbett got some great quotes from Stephen Martin, one of the two Jungian scholars who edited the red book for publication. Martin is only partly jesting when he refers to one of the late psychiatrist’s handkerchiefs as “the holy hankie, the sacred nasal shroud of C. G. Jung.” In addition to honoring this sacred relic, Martin praises Jung as a prophet and seer:

“This guy, he was a bodhisattva,” Martin said to me that day. “This is the greatest psychic explorer of the 20th century, and this book tells the story of his inner life.” He added, “It gives me goose bumps just thinking about it.”

The Red Book book began with Jung’s own blue period.

…in 1913, Jung, who was then 38, got lost in the soup of his own psyche. He was haunted by troubling visions and heard inner voices. Grappling with the horror of some of what he saw, he worried in moments that he was, in his own words, “menaced by a psychosis” or “doing a schizophrenia.”

… He found himself in a liminal place, as full of creative abundance as it was of potential ruin, believing it to be the same borderlands traveled by both lunatics and great artists.

Jung recorded it all. First taking notes in a series of small, black journals, he then expounded upon and analyzed his fantasies, writing in a regal, prophetic tone in the big red-leather book. The book detailed an unabashedly psychedelic voyage through his own mind, a vaguely Homeric progression of encounters with strange people taking place in a curious, shifting dreamscape. Writing in German, he filled 205 oversize pages with elaborate calligraphy and with richly hued, staggeringly detailed paintings.

The strangeness of the book can seen in a gallery of images that accompanied Corbett’s article.

I hadn’t meant to spend as much time reading this article as I eventually did, but Corbett overpowered me, drawing me into Jung’s psyche and the circle of his devotees.

  • Share/Bookmark
Page Icon Posted at 12:55 pm | Print Print | Permalink | Trackback | Comments (4)
divider

4 Responses to “Jung’s big ‘Red Book’”

  1. Jerry says:

    “spirituality.”

    Why are the quotes around that word? Putting quotes around science makes sense since his work is not falsifiable but it did not make sense to me to quote spirituality.

    devoted followers, some of whom revere him as a near-deity

    This is, of course, no different than those in other fields such as sports figures & teams, actors and on and on.

    more at the fringes of mainstream psychology.

    This is a probably a case of someone who does not “get” psychology. Jungian psychoanalysis is a mainstream form of analysis and even a bit old fashioned in some circles. It’s possible that the writer meant that all forms of analysis are now considered on the fringe of psychology in 2009 but I don’t think that was the intent.

  2. Julia says:

    I had always thought that AA’s 12 Steps were modelled on the Jesuit Spiritual Exercises of Loyola, not Jung.

    This link is to a page from New Wine: the Spiritual Roots of the Twelve Step Miracle by Mel B.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=VmqanwU07fMC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=Jesuit+spiritual+exercises+AA&source=bl&ots=qknFMbu4Y0&sig=2syg47jQUxL0dnqRQZQllHk5GXU&hl=en&ei=OAXxSuu5BMmj8AaCgtn1CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Jesuit%20spiritual%20exercises%20AA&f=false

    The NYT writer must only be referring to the “Higher Power” concept.

  3. MattK says:

    I am astounded by the regularity of his margins and the straightness of his lines. The book, regardless of the actual words is a work of art.

  4. Julia says:

    Fascinating article. The publication of the Red Book should make a big splash.

    One of the big subjects in medical research is - where is the mind? In the brain, in the emotions and hormones, in the synapses? At U of IL there is an ongoing project studying consciousness and computers. The academic staff is inter-disciplinary. Can we make a computer that really thinks like a human? If not, why not? And what is the connection between the mind and what some call the soul?

    Interesting article.
    Are we just physical beings? If not, what is that something more that humans have. Higher animals have synapses, too.

    Some of the exerpts from the Red Book reminds me of the writings of the mystic St Teresa of Avila.

    Insurance won’t cover analysis and the focus is on short-term directed therapy and medications to solve problems. In that sense any kind of analysis will always be “fringe” because not many people can afford it.

Leave a Reply

GetReligion will not publish, sell or share your email address, or send you spam. When we notice posts without names or email addresses, we will delete them. Why? Read our Comments/TrackBacks policy.

Markup Controls

powered by C4F Textarea Toolbar