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.
Shamdasani has misinterpreted what I have written. For example, I did not assume that the two most recent articles, one of which he co-authored, were legalistic and condemning. And, of course I favour documenting the historical truth and Shamdasani knows this from previous conversations. Although I realize that more material may become available about Jung's alleged anti-Semitism, I believe that I have thoroughly reviewed the considerable amount of information that is now available. My view is not an either/or position, but rather a both/and perspective. A central maxim of analytical psychology is to contain and hold the opposites. I am merely advocating that we apply Jung's psychology to Jung himself, which only makes sense from the vantage point of healing.
While Shamdasani's report about Jung's reaction to his autobiography (Memories, Dreams, Reflections) is interesting, it is also archetypal and represents an enantiodromia. I can see and hear Jung, the rabbi-like Taoist master, strongly approving and disapproving his autobiography. All this tells me is that Jung was human and therefore inconsistent. However, like the sage he was, Jung was aware of his inconsistencies and he owned them — characteristic of both wisdom and integrity.
It seems that Shamdasani missed the whole point of my article, which is about feeling. Perhaps that is to be expected when a non-analyst (non-healer) intellectual historian comments on a paper calling for the reader to be analytical, understanding, compassionate, and forgiving. I am at peace with what I have written, which is a part of a larger work, The Tao of Jung. Finally, I know that the ultimate reaction and commentary will be generated by this Journal's readers and I have faith in them and the healing process.