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.
In this paper Blomeyer shows how he sees and uses Jung's theory of psychological types, contrasting his views with those of G. A. Meier and Marie-Louise von Franz, and emphasising that each person sees the truth according to the ‘type’ he or she is.
He shows how, in their writings, Meier and von Franz aim to bring the inferior, more unconscious function into balance with their superior, more conscious opposites. While Meier's concepts and theories are meant to lead to individuation ‘through the total reversal of the perspective of the types’, von Franz finds that this is impossible to achieve. Her approach is through active imagination. The excessive use of active imagination she recommends seems, in turn, impossible to Blomeyer. He asserts that Jung's concepts of the types were not formulated in the sense in which Meier understands them, and he rejects Meier's systematic approach, finding it a sterile attempt at classifying everything according to types. Blomeyer draws attention to the fact that Jung's work on types pre-dates his work on individuation by many years, and that he hardly mentions them in his later writings.
Blomeyer acknowledges his indebtedness to Marie-Louise von Franz for her clear description of the constellations and dynamics of psychological types, but finds the linking of these with individuation unhelpful; especially as she describes individuation as extremely rare and achieved only by exceptional people. Blomeyer does not consider himself one of these exceptional people and says that he is in favour of what is practical and possible.
He describes how he includes in his work the neurolinguist's distinction between visual, auditory and tactile perception types. For example a therapist's metaphor, ‘let us see’, may not be ‘congruent’ with a patient's wish to be heard. This could result in the patient's feeling misunderstood. No-one knows, he says, what is meant by individuation. It remains an exploration. He himself uses typology as a flexible tool