You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Even the most objective introduction to Jung's psychology or, for that matter, any introduction to an acknowledged system of thought will be biased by the position of the writer and the audience he has in mind.
Dr Meier, Jung's disciple and collaborator and inheritor of his chair at the Zürich Technical College, presents his introduction in the form of four lectures to theological students of the Andover Theological School, Newton Centre, Mass. U.S.A. They are a rearrangement of a previous publication in 1959. In this new edition it is mainly the last lecture which deals with what Jung called the ‘religious factor’, the acquisition or restoration of a religious disposition as essential for successful therapy. The booklet fulfils its purpose by using on the whole simple and clear language—if sometimes interrupted with Latin, Greek and French phrases which might be no hurdle for theological students but might irritate the common reader. In the first three lectures Dr Meier follows the evolution of Jung's ideas. He puts more stress than is usual on Jung's ‘Word Association Test’, which led to the theory of the ‘complexes’. The most lively and most personal lecture is the third one, ‘The interpretation of dreams’. Here his profound knowledge of myth, symbolism and ancient ritual and in particular the healing practice of incubation in Greece and Rome, enlivens the subject with numerous examples and allows his personal elucidation of Jung's method its rightful place.
Incidentally, the title ‘the doctor’ instead of ‘therapist’ or ‘analytical psychologist’ appears from time to time in the text. This sounds strange nowadays when so many analytical psychologists are not medically trained. Perhaps it appears because Jung occasionally used the term himself. Or has it still a magical significance?
Dr Meier starts his fourth lecture, which is specifically on ‘Psychology and religion’, with an apology for his inability to compete with Jung's and William James's extensive researches i