The following article is a very brief highlight of certain points raised in Carl Jung’s 1915 The Theory of Psychoanalysis, and should not be though of as the last word with respect to the current state of affairs in psychology, or in Jung’s own theory, which was to become much more developed later on. What is interesting about this book, besides its historical importance in the development of the field of psychology, is the way Jung improves upon Freud’s ideas in a more mature way than his predecessor; namely, where Freud is notably arrogant about his swift conjectures and categorical claims, Jung presents his ideas more humbly and reservedly, which is possibly the reason why his derivations are more prudently logical and so more conservative in terms of the distance between ideas; Jung also gets farther because the copiousness of his ideas is higher, and so a more convincing and substantial train of thought is explored. So, not only is the tone of conversation markedly different when reading Jung, revealing a gulf of character in between the two thinkers (“scientists”), but such a difference is manifested in the degree of care and scientific openness with which possibilities are treated. Needless to say, Jung remains immensely respectful and reverential towards his late teacher, awarding him all the credit for all original ideas while presenting himself as simply the author of logical derivations thereof.
It is interesting that fanboys of psychoanalysis perceive Freud as being far more intelligent than Jung, since the most salient character difference is the arrogance and brave conjecturing of the older man. Tangentially, something similar happens with the work of Karl Marx (another star in the same ideological camp), who can write pages upon pages of empty banter and bland ideas to illustrate rather basic concepts of common sense. The art of both of these Jewish authors consists in appearing more innovative and smart than the logical and relevant content actually merits. Like Marx, Freud also can expound pages upon pages of very organized, yet very bland and obvious material (see, for instance, his work on dreams). Only those with a lack of ability for systematic thought can be impressed by any of this (the whole discipline of sociology is based on their nonsense, so perhaps Pentti Linkola is right about the limited average intelligence in that area of academic endeavour).
The most important idea to be highlighted in Jung’s The Theory of Psychoanalysis is the improvement upon the concept of libido of Freud. The issue is first presented specifying Freud’s usage and understanding of it as libido sexualis, a drive of a specifically sexual nature. Differentiated from this is the more general term of libido as handled by Jung. The main difference is that rather than defining everything in terms of sexuality, Jung argues that it makes more sense to see as a kind of mental energy that requires an outlet and so a direction. His argument is based on the fact that to base libido on sexual impulse is as justified as basing it on the “nutritioning” impulse (the drive to eat), making the latter even more plausible since younger infants are more clearly driven by an impulse to feed at an earlier stage. Jung says, quite logically and anticipating just objections by balance thinkers, that making a choice for either is completely arbitrary, and is even more tendentious in the case of libido as simply sexual drive. What libido noticeably is, moreover, can be seen as the cause of a drive towards interests and activities, and which drive behaves like a natural resource that can overflow and cause problems when not attended to consciously. Finally, while Freud’s concept serves to simply to diagnose and excuse a purportedly originally sinful nature in humans, Jung’s usage gives a functional solution that can be plausibly used to resolve knots in the human psyche.
Jung goes on to identify and functionally define three different events common to the interaction between conscious and unconscious. The first of these is resistance, which is the difficulty faced by the consciousness to identify and be able to confront the unconscious; then we have regression, which is related to fixations, the work of unresolved issues which Jung views as problems to be solved in the present through action rather than spun in often false memories of the past; finally, the concept of perversion is clarified so that the common view held by Freudians of children and so humans as “intrinsically rotten” (Middle-Eastern type of morality under the feet of atheists) is put to shame is little more than wanton conjecture: many behaviors that may be considered out of order in adults are normal for the developing mind of a child, and this includes an open curiosity for bodily sensations of pleasure —perversion entails being past the biological stage when such exploration and maturation should have happened, a disparity between libido ‘direction’, so to speak, and biological and mental stage of development.
The practical beauty of the corrections introduced by Jung (which is a great addition to its logical cogency and substantial contribution) is the possibility of resolving and utilising libido consciously by integrating it into conscious will. Jung argues that as this energy is actively refocused into a conscious activity by creating interest and active focus in this different area, libido can become absent from the fixated area of the psyche. Not only does he present the idea as a theory but bases it on years upon years of the experience of a community of psychiatrists and psychologists with patients of different kinds (backgrounds, ages, genders, etc.). This is also why libido can be seen, in this energetic theory of Jung, as a resource with a finite quantity, and which resource he himself portrays as a stream with a certain volume of water flowing in it, and which stream can be redirected, though it can also naturally returned to its original channel if not thoroughly handled.
Given the functional abstraction of the overall mental energy behind mental processes, it is unsurprising that Jung ended up studying esotericism and the occult in general, although this is apparent to those who have at least seriously studied and understood the mechanical and logical aspects of the occult, rather than basing their opinion on fantasies and legends. The interested reader would do well to take Jung and his take on alchemy by its worth as logical proposition and plausibility, instead of moronically asking for “sources” for his interpretations as though evidence could not lead to original propositions and plausible reconstructions. Study Jung, ditch Freud; learn the mechanics of occult thought, ditch religions and materialist atheism.