Ufology is the new Alchemy_ Some Post-Jungian corrections of Jungian Psychology and the Collective Pre Conscious nature of the UFO Phenomenon

Document Sample
Ufology is the new Alchemy_ Some Post-Jungian corrections of Jungian Psychology and the Collective Pre Conscious nature of the UFO Phenomenon Powered By Docstoc
					  Ufology is the new Alchemy: Some Post-Jungian
corrections of Jungian Psychology and the Collective
  Pre-Conscious nature of the UFO Phenomenon

                    Paul Budding

Academic literature in the field of Ufology exists. Most obviously Richard Dolan’s
work is thoroughly academic. However the academic literature in this field is
always in the minority. I recently ran a random internet search for ufology, academic,
PDF, critical analysis’ and the search results were still (mainly) non-academic. The
fact that the UFO Phenomenon is largely based on belief as opposed to objective
critical analysis is clearly what keeps most scientists and academics away from the
field. Nevertheless I would not be writing this if I thought that there was nothing
to the UFO phenomenon beyond what is commonly said. In this paper I argue
that the UFO Phenomenon is (1) an individual and collective response to a psychic
(psychological) tension. And (2) a collective pre-conscious revolution in world view
and science. As a Post-Jungian I regard the UFO myth as an aspect of Collective
Self. I define Collective Self later in this paper.

When it came to Alchemy (which Jung studied to an extraordinary extent) he
viewed it as characterised by unconscious psychological projection… in reality for
Jung the alchemists wanted to transform themselves as opposed to base metals. It is
similar with Ufology: It is part response to psychic tension. However just like Jung
tended to ignore the pre-conscious nature of alchemy in relation to chemistry1 so
too we need to add that Ufology is (similarly) a science fiction that is a precursor to
a fleshed out science fact.

In Part 1 of this paper I point out my similarities and differences with Jung or
Classical Jungian Psychology. This is with reference to a mere few areas that are
relevant to Part 2 of this paper. The key difference is on the concept of the Self.
Then in Part 2 I outline my post-Jungian perspective on the UFO Phenomenon.

     Part 1: Similarities and Differences with Jung’s Psychology

This part of the paper will require some definition of terminology. All of the terms
that are discussed here are relevant to part 2’s discussion concerning the UFO

Jung’s ideas can be split into two. On the one side… ‘Personal Psychology’ and on
the other side… ‘Collective Psychology’. It is true that his Archetypes and the
Collective Unconscious is the most famous and dominant side of his work.
However personalistic psychology is relevant to Classical Jungian Psychology and
Jung’s work on Mental Illness in The Psychogenesis of Mental Disease1 would probably
be agreeable to many Freudians. It is agreeable to me. When Jung sticks to ego,
repression, complexes and dissociation within an individual context then I have no
problem with his work. Indeed, it is educative. See my edited paper on
Dissociation Psychology2 for a paper concerning the psychology of the neurotic

However, as we shall see, Jung confuses individual and collective psychology.
There is an individual and collective side to Jung’s work but they unfortunately and
needlessly blur due to Jung’s internalizing of everything he touches. My Post-
Jungian correction to this is to clearly distinguish between individual and collective
psychology… and thus not to internalize everything.

Individual Psychology                           Collective Psychology

Individual Ego Consciousness                    Collective Self Phenomena

Individual Repressed Complexes                   Collective Shadow Phenomena

Individual Dissociation                          Collective Loss of Soul

So for example Collective Myth, Christianity, Islam, and Ufology are all branches
of the tree of Collective Self Psychology .

Similar to Jung I define Ego Consciousness as:

Ego = I

Consciousness = differentiation of oneself from the external object. Failure to do
this means an identification with the object that then becomes internalized in the
mind. Then the need arises to become consciously aware of this identification.

Ego Consciousness needs to be careful not to identify with Collective Self

I criticise Jung from my Post-Jungian perspective as he falls foul of faulty
psychological thinking due to excessive internalizing. In my Post-Jungian update of

Jung’s theories I use DIFFERENT terms to define individual psychology and
collective psychology. The individual ego thinks about and relates to branches of
the Collective Self BUT if individual ego internalizes Collective Self phenomena
then it inflates, identifies and is at serious risk of prolonged neurosis and

Over and over again Jung makes the mistake of identifying his individual ego with
Collective Self Phenomena.3 But then he rightly backs-off. Jung’s over internalizing
(in his writings) thus causes confusion. Collective religion, collective alchemy,
collective myth, collective Ufology do not belong to Jung. They are collective,
public, out there, external to Jung. The mistake is to internalize that which does
not belong to the individual and then to identify with it. Because if you internalize
and identify with collective myth, gods etc then the individual will inflate,
dissociate, etc. The individual should not identify with Collective Self psychology.
(S)he should not even bias it. Just look at it and if you want take an interest in it
and relate to it. But always ensure conscious differentiation of individual ego
psychology and Collective Self psychology. Then you would only experience loss
of soul if your collective culture experienced loss of soul, such as when an entire
culture loses its religious faith or loses a war that the society thought would not be

So my Post-Jungian psychology articulates a sharp distinction between individual
psychology/terminology and collective psychology/terminology. Ego, complexes,
repression, dissociation are fine at individual level but at the collective level where
we find myth and religion I prefer Collective Self Phenomena, Collective Shadow
Phenomena, Collective loss of soul.

Of course the term ‘Archetype(s)’ is the most famous of all Jungian terms.
However, for Jung archetypes are hard-wired’ in the human head. This is based on
dreadfully weak evidence. And I therefore see no reason why not to simply accept
Freud’s belief in Myth Diffusion as opposed to Jung’s Independent Invention.4
Basically the argument from Jung is that myths are created independently and not
due to emigration. Of course he accepts that the stories are not identical but that
the archetypes within them are (e.g., shadow, self). However, Jung has no solid
evidence for this and therefore there is no reason to accept it. Nevertheless we do
have Collective Myth, we do have Collective Religion, we do have the UFO legend.
And therefore the individual ego will inevitably at the very least glance at Collective
myth and religion. Hence I take the collective archetypes as descriptors as

opposed to hard-wired in our heads… which is consistent with diffusion theory.
Archetypes are invented because they are a good fit with collective life and its
discourse. I further blaspheme within a Jungian context by thinking (consistent
with Freudian psychology) that much of the unconscious does indeed derive from
conscious psychology.

Jung did at least realise that a strong ego is required. For example he is very clear
about this in his account of his own Confrontation with the Unconscious.5
However, for Jung, as said, this is always to do with taking what is external and
then internalizing it and then blurring categories. In my post-Jungian psychology
the individual and collective terminology is essential for psychological health as it
enables the individual to keep aware of what is your psychological property and
what is public and external to the individuals psychology. It is precisely when
Collective Self phenomena is internalized and identified with that we experience
neurotic problems.

Culture is very important to the field of Psychology. Modern Western Psychology
is nothing like Primitive Psychology. The differences outweigh the similarities.
Moderns no longer project the whole of their psychology out onto the external
world and then experience it boomeranged back at them. Primitive Psychology
internalizes the world. Modern’s look at a tree with ego consciousness. In other
words we view the tree through differentiation (ego I and external other… other =
tree). Primitives look at the tree unconsciously. They internalize the object and
experience unconscious participation mystique (identification) with it. Hence you
cannot see that the primitive lacks ego conscious differentiation. You would have
to be able to get into his or her mind to do that. Terence Dawson articulates the
cultural psychology differences between myths in The Cambridge Companion to Jung 6
Dawson is right to do so because Jung tended to overlook the differences in his
desire to demonstrate similarities. Jung did this because he was trying to prove the
hardwiring archetypes hypothesis. Therefore Jung biased his own work.

   Part 2: A Post-Jungian Perspective on the UFO Phenomenon

The in-ness or participation mystique experienced by primitives or in altered states
of consciousness is a psychology of the past.1 It’s gone. What we can do now as
moderns, is look at and critically analyse Collective Self Phenomena. And yes, the
UFO Phenomenon qualifies as a Collective Self psychology.

Modern Psychology recognises the importance of relatedness. Everything depends
on how we relate to the outer object. But the relatedness is no longer an in-ness,
oneness, participation mystique or immersion. The progression from Primitive
Psychology to Modern Psychology is not just about the headline of from mythical
thinking to scientific thinking (although it is definitely that). It is also from in-ness
to relatedness. Everything depends on how we relate to things. Hence the first
step is to look at the outer object (but not to immerse oneself in it, do not let it in!...
but instead feel a differentiated interest concerning it. It then becomes your
context (not immersion) from within which you think. Thus you become able to
understand the world (at least to your own satisfaction) thanks to the relatedness
to your field and thinking within the context of your field.
The individual ego can look at and think about the UFO myth as a branch of
Collective Self psychology. If (s)he does this consciously (i.e., individual ego
differentiated from collective external object) then that is healthy. On the other
hand if the ego looks at the Collective Self UFO Phenomenon unconsciously then
that would be an internalizing and identifying with the object. That would be

A disturbance in the collective psyche has resulted in the establishment of the
UFO legend. The UFO mystery has been around since 1947. It is collective and it
is valued by millions of people. As said in the introduction it is largely belief-driven
thus sharing that characteristic with great myths and traditional religions. Ufology
lacks academic critical analysis. Yes the UFO buff differentiates his or her mind
from the material to some extent but (s)he maintains a belief bias towards it. The
UFO buff prefers belief over serious scrutiny of their field. It is not so much
identification but it is projection. At times the lack of objectivity can be seen as
overwhelming and annoying. It is annoying because the field has potential. But the
upside of this lack of objective critical analysis is that Ufology becomes
characterised by mystery and fascination. It is definitely not boring. This attracts
people and establishes the UFO myth that continues to thrive today.

There’s too much belief and certainty (whether it be fake or genuine certainty) in
Ufology. When in reality the real work needs to be left to the physicists. People
who understand physics and who can think objectively and can think critically (not
just through unconscious projection) are the ones who should be in charge of
serious Ufology. For example figures such as Michio Kaku and Jacques Vallee.2

I know that the UFO Phenomenon is here to stay (otherwise it wouldn’t be a
Phenomenon). However, that’s the Collective Self side of it, full of projections,
beliefs, wishful thinking, salvation hopes and pop culture entertainment. Its part of
life but it is through advancements in theoretical physics that will surely establish
genuine understanding at the collective level. At present the field is similar to how
Alchemy used to be. Only when Alchemy evolved to Chemistry did we achieve real
understanding. Ufology is the Alchemy before the Chemistry, the Number
Mysticism before the Math, the Science Fiction before the Science Fact. Wolfgang
Pauli would say that the UFO myth is collective pre-consciousness… myth craving
to become science. We will return to that point later in this part of the paper.

With regards to Ufology…the sort of questions that physics needs to find answers
to include…

    The possibility of communication and manipulation from future humans to
     the past, and of them future humans coming from anytime and anywhere.
     (e.g. other planets, other dimensions).

    The link (if any) concerning NDE reality and UFO reality. In the NDE all is
     One. You do not go from Point A to Point B after you have had the thought.
     You go from A to B at exactly the same time as you have the thought. ALL is
     One hence the thought is part of this oneness and acausality. Hence thought =
     reality. So if you think that you want to go from Point A to Point B then this
     occurs simultaneous with the thought. Indeed, it seems like reality in the
     NDE is of the same kind of reality that we see in the manoeuvres of Ufo’s.
     UFO’s also do not need to move in linear causal fashion from Point A to
     Point B. Instead they just re-appear at Point B. This is evident in their
     popping in-and-out of existence. Surely this is highly relevant to Quantum
     theory and all kinds of time and space relativity issues that theoretical
     physicists can get their teeth into. And related to this there is a question… Is
     a Kuhnian worldview paradigm shift necessary… similar to when the discoveries were
     made concerning the earth being round (as opposed to flat) and just a dot in the universe
     (as opposed to earth being at the centre of the universe)?

    ‘If’ human time-travel is theoretically possible then we can assume that the
     future humans would be interested in past human history… but that
     whatever manipulations future humans do to us will be more sophisticated        3

     than (a) brute intervention and (b) more sophisticated than absolutely no
     intervention. However we can only follow physics on issues concerning
     time-travel.4 Afterall physics deals with theories such as hyperdimensions,
     the multiverse, parallel universes.

Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. With Jung we say that the UFO
Phenomenon is psychologically significant because its collective existence is due to
a collective psychic (i.e., psychological) tension. Hence Jung implies that the
already-healthy have less need for Ufology. For Jung many of these already healthy
people are already contained in traditional religions such as Catholic Christianity or
Islam etc. Latching onto UFO’s and ET’s is an attempt to gain psychological
health. Nevertheless, I have looked into Ufology and can say that there are a
minority of objective, academic, and highly intelligent people who are interested in
the field. For example the retired U.S. Army Colonel John B. Alexander told me
that many people working inside the U.S. military establishment are interested in
the field.5 Some of those who are interested work behind the scenes. One such
theoretical physicist, Jacques Vallee, has been a high profile Ufologist but therefore
he is well-aware of the belief-driven UFO-buff characteristic of Ufology. Hence
often (maybe even usually) he works behind the scenes and no-doubt, engages far
more with those of a similar mindset rather than engaging with the majority of
UFO buffs who are needing to believe. Because that is roughly how I define the
UFO buff. Specifically, I would define them as ‘UFO enthusiasts who simply want
to believe and therefore possess a biased slant on the issue of the UFO
Phenomenon.’ Anything to do with the Collective Self inevitably experiences
endless biased projections onto it.

I agree with Jung that this dominant religious element within Ufology concerns
psychological renewal. Those that need psychological renewal thirst for a Kuhnian
worldview changing scientific paradigm shift. Those who do not need renewal are
already contented and are therefore psychologically conservative. Personally I have
a psychological side to myself that is radical and progressive and another part of
myself that is conservative. The conservatism is important. Psychological
conservatism can be healthy but so can psychological renewal.

The UFO Phenomenon represents an emerging new paradigm that has not been
fleshed out as yet. It is the alchemy before the chemistry, the number mysticism
before the math, the science fiction before the science fact. It possesses elements
of myth (as most people understand myth… i.e., as fiction) and elements of
science. Hopefully we are at the late alchemy stage of Ufology’s development and
not the early stage.

Psychologically Ufology represents not only a collective psychological tension but
also hints at the need for a paradigm shift. Eventually this shift will happen. Then
Ufology will cease to exist in its present form… as it will have fulfilled its function.


The UFO Myth is, like alchemy was… revolutionary. It seeks nothing less than a
scientific paradigm shift. However no one knows what the new worldview
changing scientific paradigm shift will look like. Moreover just like alchemy
became chemistry, Ufology will become something different and therefore will
cease to exist due to being somewhat off the mark. Ufology offers us material that
require fleshing out by science. But many of Ufology’s adherents are merely people
wanting a modern equivalent of traditional religious belief and are therefore just in
need of psychological renewal themselves. This again replicates alchemy. Many
alchemists were just needing psychological renewal. Hence with Ufology we see
individual and collective need for renewal. Ufology exists due to a psychic need in
individuals and for a pre-conscious revolution in collective science and worldview.

1. Connolly, A, 2013

Part 1
1. Jung, 1960

2. Budding, 2011

3. Jung makes the mistake of internalizing and identifying with the Collective Self… albeit he seems to
recognise the error and then differentiate but rather than recognizing that this distancing equates to just
looking and relating to an external Collective Self object (such as an Alchemy Text), he instead continues
to talk as if the alchemy text is in him. Jung defines the Self as “An empirical concept, the self designates
the whole range of psychic phenomena in man. It expresses the unity of the personality as a whole.”
(Jung, 1992, par. 789). The following is simply not accepted by modern psychology: “The self is not only
the centre, but also the whole circumference which embraces both conscious and unconscious; it is the
centre of this totality, just as the ego is the centre of consciousness.” (Jung, 1980, par 44). And here I
think Jung is describing the problem of internalizing and identifying but he doesn’t see it like that… Jung
says that the ego is impacted upon by realization of the Self. “The ego cannot help discovering that the
afflux of the unconscious contents has vitalized the personality, enriched it and created a figure that
somehow dwarfs the ego in scope and intensity… Naturally in these circumstances there is the greatest
temptation simply to follow the power-instinct and to identify the ego with the self outright, in order to
keep up the illusion of the ego’s mastery… [But] the self has a functional meaning only when it can act
compensatorily to ego consciousness. If the ego is dissolved in identification with the self, it gives rise to a
sort of nebulous superman with a puffed up ego.” (Jung, 1970, par 430).

In Robert Segal’s edited book “Jung on Mythology” Segal (in discussing myths of the hero) says
(consistent with my Post-Jungian psychological theory) that “the emergence and development of the ego
and ego consciousness [equates to] consciousness of the difference between oneself and the external
world.” (Segal in Jung, 1998, p145). In my theory this differentiation includes ego differentiation from
Collective Self Phenomena. But Segal is discussing Jung’s views and therefore goes on to define Jung’s
view of the ego/self dynamics (which I am arguing is neurotic, confused etc.) Segal writes that Jung views
“the adulthood and death of the [mythical] hero [as symbolic of] the return of the ego to the unconscious
and its reintegration with the unconscious to form the self.” (ibid). That explains Jung’s view but it is a
muddled theory and one that over internalizes, identifies and causes psychological problems.

4. Segal in Jung, 1998, p13-17

5. Jung, in Jung, & Jaffee, 1995, p201-203. On p202-203 Jung implies that he risked psychosis in his
confrontation with the unconscious. He writes “…I was afraid of losing command of myself and
becoming prey to the fantasies – and as a psychiatrist I realised only too well what that meant.”

6. Myths possess similarities and differences. I agree with Terence Dawson who writes in 'The Cambridge
Companion to Jung' that "My contention is that the 'dominant concern' of the most basic oral traditions and

very early myths is identity in itself. One thinks, in the first instance of tribal societies in which people are
entirely "at one" with their collective traditions, unable to differentiate between themselves and the world
in which they live. They enjoy a greater sense of wholeness than their modern counterpart, but it is an
undifferentiated and unconscious form of wholeness utterly without individuality as we understand this
term. Even so, this "stage" should not be thought of as only pertinent to primitive societies: It applies to
all writing where there is little or no distinction between the personal and the collective." (Dawson, in
Eisendrath and Dawson, 1997, p270). Dawson continues... "The emergence of literature which is
predominately concerned with the exploration of both a social reality and individual consciousness is a
relatively recent phenomenon. Its first clear manifestations date from about the third quarter of the
seventeenth century when the collective projection represented by the Christian 'worldview' gradually
began to break apart. Inevitably, this occasioned a radical shift in consciousness. It compelled individuals
to make sense of their own reality and identity. For the first time in history, writers began to see a much
fuller social spectrum than had ever been noticed before and to explore the implications of this for the
individual: i.e., to explore both a social reality and a sense of individual consciousness that are
recognizably related to our own concerns at the turn of the 21st century. The apparently conflicting
aspects of this [...] stage are perhaps best illustrated by the works of the French philosopher Jean-Jacques
Rousseau. His Social Contract (1762) begins with the words "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in
chains," and his Confessions (written in the 1760s; published 1782 and 1789) begins with the assertion "I
may not be worth any more than my fellow men, but at least I am different." In these two phrases we can
see the seeds of modern socio-political consciousness and modern individualism." (Dawson in Eisendrath
and Dawson, 1997, p271).

I add here that… as for the UFO literature… that is likely to be turned to by the modern person due to a
psychic (i.e., psychological) tension.

Part 2
1. See

Wolfgang Giegerich is good for his discourse on death of the symbol and death of primitive in-ness.
(identification). Like Dawson earlier, Giegerich understands cultural historical psychology. He is also one
of those thinkers who here-and-there makes impressive quotes. Some quotes of Giegerich’s that I agree

“By stubbornly insisting on our feelings of the deep meaning evoked by the individuation experience, we
as modern people are, as it were, playing 'African medicine man' or 'shaman' - without, however,
admitting that we are merely playing those roles. In a way, we are like tourists watching a show of tribal
dancing or a shamanistic seance, and because we are deeply moved by it in our personal feeling, we take
this feeling as a mark of truth, closing our eyes to the fact that we are witnessing a mere tourist attraction.
To be sure, this show is the display of a former truth, but this display itself does not have the status of
truth anymore.”

(Giegerich 2005a)

“If the kabbalists had the theory of the ‘infinite interpretability’ of the mystic symbols, those symbols
must already have been a thing of the past for them, because living symbols need no interpretation: they
are their meaning.”
(Giegerich, 2005a)

“The transformation achieved by long-term psychological analysis will not result in real change unless the
thinking that the patient brought with her or him to the analysis is also changed.”
(Giegerich, 2005b, pXV)

“…the modern mind wants to be autonomous and insists on accepting only what it finds credible on the
basis of its own judgement..”
(Giegerich, 2012)

Giegerich quotes Jung… “We cannot turn the wheel backwards; we cannot go back to the symbolism
that is gone” (Jung, 1977, par 632). Then Giegerich says “Thus once consciousness has entered the stage
of logos, of philosophical, critically-reflective thought, of conceptual thinking (which it did more than 2500
years ago), it cannot return to mythos. Following Jung (ibid) we can say: it cannot do this because
consciousness then knows too much; doubt [i.e., reflection] has killed mythos. The innocence, the
immediacy, of the former mythic stance to the world is lost.”
(Giegerich, 2012)

Despite these quotes, I merely take fragments from Giegerich. More important to me is Jung’s work. I
learn a lot more from that. And remember that I sign up to Jung’s early work on mental illness without
have to preface Jung with the word ‘POST’. I also consider Robert Segal as a more important thinker
than Giegerich because Segal clarifies Jung’s work better than anyone. See Segal’s edited ‘Jung on

2. Jacque’s Vallee, writing in the foreword to Richard Dolan’s ‘UFO’s and the National Security State:
Chronology of a Cover-up’ demonstrates smart thinking that goes beyond the mere repetition of the old
biological alien and nuts n bolts designed craft theory commonly referred to as ETH. I say in note 4 (see
next page) that we need to be thinking about the technological Singularity and the fact that humans in the
21st century are going beyond biology. Likewise Vallee is smart to consider progress in theoretical physics
and how that also impacts (or should impact!) on Ufological thinking. Vallee writes “All efforts to break
open the mystery so far have made the assumption that the “big secret’ merely involves extraterrestrial

spacecraft put together with metal rivets. This partial view is supported by the many instances in which
UFO’s have been seen by pilots, photographed and tracked on radar. Yet modern physical theory opens
up a much wider, richer spectrum of hypotheses for objects that might blink in and out of perception,
impact the consciousness of witnesses, accelerate without creating sonic booms, change shape, and merge
with one another dynamically. Concepts of higher dimensionality, once on the fringes of physics, have
entered the mainstream of science. […] The UFO witnesses are telling us they have experienced objects
of vast complexity that challenged their sense of reality. Such observations are anomalous in the narrow
sense of classical physics we learn in school, but they may help build a conceptual framework for the
physics of the twenty first century.” (Vallee in Dolan, 2002, foreword)

3. Subtle, smart, elusive, but effective intervention.

4. We can however remind physics to not overlook the technological Singularity which would emphasise
that future humans wouldn’t be biological but would be human AI.

5. Alexander, personal correspondence.


Budding, P, (2011) Dissociation Psychology

Connolly, A. M. (2013) Cognitive Aesthetics of Alchemical Imagery. Journal of
Analytical Psychology, 58: 4–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5922.2013.02015.x

Dolan, R, (2002) UFO’s and the National Security State: Chronology of a Cover-
up (Keyhole Publishing Company)

Eisendath, P. Y, & Dawson, T, (1997) The Cambridge Companion to Jung

(Cambridge University Press)

Giegerich, W, (2004) The End of Meaning and the Birth of Man: An Essay about
the State Reached in the History of Consciousness and an Analysis of C. G. Jung’s
Psychology Project. Journal of Jungian Theory and Practice, Vol 6, No. 1

Giegerich, W, (2005a) The Ego-Psychological Fallacy: A Note on “the birth of the
meaning out of a symbol” Journal of Jungian Theory and Practice, Vol 7, No. 2

Giegerich, W, (2005b) Dialectics and Analytical Psychology: The El Capitan
Canyon Seminar (Spring Journal)

Giegerich, W, (2012) Saban’s Alternative. An Alternative?'s%20Alternative.n.pdf
(The International Society for Psychology as the Discipline of Interiority: ISPDI)

Jung, C, (1960) CW: Vol: 3: The Psychogenesis of Mental Disease (Princeton
University Press)

Jung, C, (1970) CW: Vol: 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche

Jung, C, (1977) CW: Vol: 17: The Symbolic Life: Miscellaneous Writings
(Princeton University Press)

Jung, C, (1980) CW: Vol: 12: Psychology and Alchemy (Routledge second edition)

Jung, C, (1992) CW: Vol: 6: Psychological Types (Routledge)

Jung, C, (1995) Memories, Dreams, Reflections (Recorded and Edited by Aniela Jaffee)
(Fontana Press)

Jung, C, (1998) Jung on Mythology (Key Readings Selected and Introduced by Robert A.
Segal) (Routledge)


Shared By: