Switzerland. Karl Gustav Jung. Born in 1875. With Freud, one of the founding fathers of modern psychology. Still working at 84, he is the most honored living psychiatrist and history will record him as one of the greatest physicians of all time. Elders, two attending doctoral studies. Services Forces in young home. It's just about 50 years. Do you live here now just with your secretaries and your English housekeeper? Yes. No children or grandchildren with you. Well, no, they don't live here, but they have plenty of them in their surroundings. Do they come to see you often? Oh, yes. How many grandchildren have you? All 19. And great grandchildren? I think eight. And I suppose one is on the way. And do you enjoy having them? Well, of course, it's nice to feel such a living crowd or out of themselves. Are they afraid of you, do you think? Ah, I don't think so if we would know my grandchildren or the wooden things or what they steal by things. Even my hat belongs to me, they stole the other day.
Now, can I take you back to your own childhood? Do you remember the occasion when you first felt consciousness of your own individual self? That was in my 11th year. There I suddenly, on my way to school, I stepped out of a mist. It was just as if I had been in a mist, walking in a mist, and I stepped out of it, and the new I am. I am what I am. And then I thought, but what have I been before? And then I found that I was, that I had been in a mist, not knowing to differentiate myself from things. I was just one thing about among many things. Now, was that associated with any particular episode in your life, or was it just a normal function of adolescence? Well, that's difficult to say. As far as I can remember, nothing had happened before. That would explain this sudden coming to consciousness.
You hadn't, for instance, been quarreling with your parents or anything. No. What memories have you of your parents? Were they strict and outfashioned in the way they brought you up? Oh, you know, they belong to the later parts of the Middle Ages. And my father was a person in the country. And you can imagine what people were. Then, you know, in the 70s of the past century, they had the convictions in which people have lived since 1,000, 800 years. How did he try to impress these convictions on you? Did he punish you, for instance? Oh, no, no. No, no. He was very liberal. And he was most tolerant, most understanding. Which did you get on with more intimately? Your father or your mother? That's difficult to say. In, of course, one is always more intimate with the mother. But when it comes to the personal feeling, I had a better relation to my father who was predictable. Then with my mother, who was, to me, a very problem, a problem at little something.
So, at any rate, fear was not an element in your relation with your father. Not at all. Did you accept him as being infallible in his judgments? Oh, no, I knew he was very valuable. How old were you when you knew that? I'll have wish he. The. Perhaps 11 or 12 years old. He was hanging together with the fact that I was, that I knew I was. And from then on, I saw that my father is different. Yes. So, the moment of self-revelation was closely connected with realizing the fallibility of your parents. Yes, Uncle Saisou. Now, what about. And I realized that I had fear of my mother, but not during the day. There she was quite known to me unpredictable, but in the night, I had fear of my mother. And can you remember why? Can you remember what that was? I have a little slightest idea why, man.
What about your school days now? Were you happy at school? As a school? In the beginning of us, very happy to have companions, because before I had been very lonely. We lived in the country, and I had to. You know, brother and sister. My sister was born very much later when it was nine years old. And so I was used to be alone, but I missed it. I missed company. And in school, it was wonderful to have company. But soon, you know, in a country school, naturally, I was far ahead. And then I began to be bored. What sort of religious upbringing did your father give you? We were Swiss-reformed. And did he make you attend church regularly? Oh, well, that was quite natural. Everybody went to church for something. And did you believe in God? Oh, yes. Do you now believe in God? Now, difficult to answer, I know. I don't need to believe. I know.
Well, now, turning to the next staging point in your life, what made you decide to become a doctor? That was in the first place a merely opportunistic choice. I really, originally, I wanted to be an archaeologist at Syriology, Egyptology, or something of the sort. I had no money. The study was too expensive. So my second love then belonged to nature, particularly theology. And then when I began my studies, I inscribed in the so-called philosophical faculty tool. That means natural sciences. But then I soon saw that it was my career that was before me would make a school more so of me. I never thought I had any chance to get any further because we had no money at all.
And then I saw that didn't suit my expectations. You know, I didn't want to become a schoolman. Teaching was not just what I was looking for. And so I remembered that my guide for what has been a doctor. And I knew that when I was studying medicine, I had a chance to study natural science. And to become a doctor and a doctor can develop. You see, he can have a practice. He can choose his scientific interests more or less. At all events, I would have more chance than being a schoolmaster, also the idea of doing something useful with human beings appeal to me.
And did you, when you decided to become a doctor, have difficulty in getting the training at school and in passing the exams? I particularly had a difficulty with certain teachers. That didn't believe that I could write these diseases. I remember long case where the teacher had the custom to be happy to discuss the papers written by the pupils. And he took the best first. And he went through the whole number of pupils. And I didn't appear. And I was badly troubled over it. You know, I thought whether it is possible that Jesus can be that bad.
And when he had finished, he said, there is still one paper left over. And that is the one by Jung. That would be by far the best paper if it hadn't been copied. He has just copied it somewhere. Stolen, you are a thief Jung. And if I knew where you have stolen it, I would fling you out of school. And I would mad and say that the one Jesus where I have worked the most because the theme was interesting in contrast to the other themes, which are not at all interesting to me.
And then he said, you are a liar. And if you can prove that you have stolen that thing somewhere, then you get out of school. Now that was a very serious thing to me, because what else then, you see? And I hated that fellow. And that was the only man I could have killed, you know. If I had met him once at a dark corner, I would have shown him something of what I could do. Did you often have violent thoughts about people when you were young? No, not exactly. Only when they got mad.
Well, then they beat him up. And did you often get mad? Not so often, but then for good. You were very strong and big, I imagine. Yes, I was pretty strong. And you know, reared in the country with those basins, voices, rough kind of life. I would have been capable of violence. I know. I was a bit afraid of it. So I rather tried to avoid the critical situations because I didn't trust myself once. I was attacked by about seven boys. And I got mad.
And I took one and just swung him round with his legs, you know. And beat down four of them. And then there was a satisfied. And were there any consequences from that after all you would say, yes. From then on, I was always, always suspected that I was at the bottom of every trouble. I was not. But they were afraid. And I was never attacked again. Well, now, when the time came that you qualified as a doctor, what made you decide to specialize in being an alienist?
Yeah, that is rather an interesting point. Well, now, I had finished my studies practically. And when I didn't know what I really wanted to do, I had a big chance to follow one of my professors. He was called to a new position in Munich. And he wanted me as his assistant. And then, but then in that moment, I studied for my final examination. I came across the textbook, a textbook of the subcigaratory. Up to then, I saw nothing about it, because our professors then wasn't particularly interesting.
And I only read the introduction to that book, where certain things were said about the accuracy as a malagreishment of personality. That hit the nail on the head. In that moment, I saw I must become an alienist. My heart was something wildly in that moment. And when I told my professor, I wouldn't follow him. I would study psychiatry. He couldn't understand it. No, my friends, because it was the case, the psychiatry was nothing at all.
But I saw one D, one great chance to unite certain contrasting things in myself, namely, beside natural science, I always had studied history of philosophy and such subjects. There was first, as if suddenly two streams were joining. And how long was it after you took that decision that you first came in contact with Freud? Oh, you know, that was at the end of my studies. And then it took quite a while until I met Freud. You see, I finished my studies in 1900. And I met Freud. Only very much later, by I read. Well, in 1900, I already read history with the interpretation and the Breuer-Freud studies about hysteria. But that was merely literary, you know. And then in 1977, I became acquainted with him personally.
Would you tell me how that happened? Did you go to Vienna? Well, I'd written a book about the psychology of the men's hair pre-cocard, called Schizophrenia, then. And I sent him that book. And thus, we have acquainted. I went to Vienna for a fortnight then. And then we had in very long and penetrating conversations. And that settled it. And this long and penetrating conversation was followed by personal friendship. Oh, yes. It soon developed into a personal friendship.
And what sort of man was Freud? Well, he was a complicated nature, even though he. I liked him very much. But I soon discovered that when he had thought something, then it was settled. Well, I was doubting all along the line. And it was impossible to discuss something really affluent. You know, he had no philosophical education, particularly because he was studying Kant. And I was steeped in it. And that was far from Freud. So from the very beginning, there was a discrepancy.
Did you, in fact, grow apart later, partly because of the difference in temperamental approach to experiment and proof and so on? Well, of course, there is always a temperamental difference. And his approach was naturally different from mine, because his personality was different from mine, that led me into my later investigation of psychological types, with a rather definite attitudes. Some people are doing it in this way, and other people are doing it in another typical way. And there were such differences between myself and Freud, too.
Do you consider that Freud's standard of proof and experimentation was less higher than your own? Well, you see, that is a never-ending evaluation. I'm not competent of. I'm not my own history, oh, my history, oh, graff. I, in better reference to certain results, I think my method has its merits. Tell me, did Freud himself ever analyze you? Oh, yes, I submitted quite a lot of my dreams to him. So did he? And he too, yes.
Oh, yes, yes. Do you remember now at this distance of time, what were the significant features of Freud's dreams that you needed at the time? Well, that is rather indiscreet to ask, you know, I have never such a thing as a professional secret. He's been dead these many years. I, you are, yes. But these regards are longer than life. I prefer not to talk about it.
Well, may I ask you something else, then, which perhaps is also indiscreet? Is it true that you have a very large number of letters which you exchanged with Freud, which are still unpublished? Yes. When are they going to be published? Well, not during my lifetime. You would have no objection to them being published after your life. Oh, no, not at all. Because they are probably of great historical importance. I don't think so.
Then why have you not published them so far? Because they were not important to me enough. I see no particular importance in them. They are concerned with personal matters. Well partially. But I wouldn't care to publish them. Well, now, can we move on to the time when you did eventually part company with Freud? It was partly, I think, with the publication of your psychology of the unconscious. Is that correct? That is, that is, what was the real course?
Well, now, before you, oh, I mean the final course. Because it had a long preparation. From the beginning, I had a reservoir of mental illness. I couldn't agree with quite a number of his ideas. Which one is in particular? Well, chiefly, his purely personal approach and his disregard of the historical conditions of man, who we depend largely upon our history. We are shaped through education, through the influence of the parents, which are by no means always personal. They were prejudiced or they were influenced by historical ideas or what I call dominance.
And that is a mostly size factor, is our culture. And we are not of today or of yesterday, we are of an immense age. Was it not partly your observation, your clinical observation of psychotic cases, which led you to differ from Freud on this? It was partially by experience with schizophrenic patients that led me to the idea of certain general historical conditions.
Is there any one case that you can now look back on and feel that perhaps it was the turning point of your thought? Oh, yes. I made quite a number of experiences, or that sort. And I went even to Washington to study at Nigos at the psychiatric clinic there in order to find out whether they have the same type of dreams as we have. And these experience and others led me then to the hypothesis that there is an impersonal stratum in our psyche.
And I can tell you, for example, we had a patient in the ward. He was quiet but completely dissociated, schizophrenic. And he was in the clinic already ward 20 years. He had come into the clinic as a matter of fact, being a young man, a little arcant, and did no particular education.
And once I came into the ward and he was obviously excited and called to me, took me by the label of my coat and led me to the window and said, now you will see. Now look at the sun and see how it moves. You must move your head too like this. And then you will see the follows of the sun. And you know, that's the origin of the wind.
And you see how the sun moves as you move your head from one side to the other. Now of course I did that sign the throne. I thought, there you are. He is just crazy. And that case remained in my mind. And four years later, I came across a paper written by the German historian, Edith Risch, who had dealt with the so-called Mitras literature, a part of the Great Parisian Social Papyrus.
And there he produced the part of the so-called Mitras literature. Namely, he said there, after the second prayer, I will see the disc of the sun unfolds. And you will see hanging down from it the tube, the origin of the wind. And when you move thy face, then face to the reasons of the east, it will move there. And if you move your face to the reason of the west, it will follow you.
And instantly I know, now this is it. This is the vision of my patient. But how could you be sure that your patient wasn't unconsciously recording something that somebody had told you? Oh, no. Quite out of question, because that thing was not known. It was in a magic papyrus in Paris. And it wasn't even published. It was only published four years later after I had observed it with my patient.
And this you felt proved that there was an unconscious, which was something more than personal. Oh, well, it was not a proof to me, but it was a hint. And I took the hint. Now, tell me, how did you first decide to start your work on the psychological types? Was that also as a result of some particular clinical experience?
Less so, it was a very personal ancient. And namely, to do justice to the psychology of Freud, also to that of order, and to find my own bearings, that helped me to understand why Freud developed such a theory. Oh, why? Order developed his theory, his power principle. Have you concluded what psychological type you are yourself?
Naturally, I have devoted the great deal of attention to that painful question. And reach the conclusion, well, the type is nothing static. It changes it in the course of life. But I most certainly was characterized by thinking, always thought, from early childhood. And I had a great deal of intuition too.
And I had a definite difficulty with feeling. And my relation to reality was not particularly brilliant. I was often at variance with the reality of things. Now, that gives you all the necessary data for diagnosis. During the 1930s, when you were working a lot with German patients, you did, I believe, forecast that a second world war was very likely.
Well, now, looking at the world today, do you feel that the third world war is likely? I have no definite indications in that respect. But there are so many indications that one doesn't know what one sees. Is it trees or is it the wood? It's very difficult to say. Because the dreams of people's dreams contain apprehensions, you know.
But it is very difficult to say whether they point to a war. Because that idea is a promotion in people's mind. Forbidden, you know, it has been much simpler. People didn't think of a war. And therefore, it was rather clear what the dreams meant. Nowadays, no more so.
We are so full of apprehensions, fears that one doesn't know exactly to what it points. But one thing is sure, a great change of our psychological attitude is imminent. That is certain. Why? Because we need more psychology. We need more understanding of human nature.
Because the only real danger that exists is man himself. He is the great danger. And we are pitifully unaware of it. We know nothing of man, far too little. His sight should be studied, because we are the origin of all coming evil. Well, does man do you think need to have the concept of sin and evil to live with? Is this part of our nature? Well, obviously. And of a redeemer that is an inevitable consequence. This is not a concept which will disappear as we become more rational. It's something we need to do.
Well, I don't believe that man ever will deviate from the original pattern of his being. There will always be such ideas. For instance, if you do not directly believe in a personal redeemer as it was the case with Hitler or the hero worship in Russia, then it is an idea. It is a symbolic idea. You have written one time and another some sentences which have surprised me a little about death. Now, in particular, I remember you said that death is psychologically just as important as birth. And like it, it's an integral part of life.
But surely, it can't be like birth if it's an end, can it? Yes, if it's an end. And there we are now quite certain about this end. Because there are these peculiar faculties of the psyche that they didn't entirely confine to space and time. You can have dreams or visions of the future. You can see your round callers and such things only ignorance denies these facts. You have quite evident that there do exist. And they have existed always.
Now, these facts show that the psyche in part at least is not dependent upon these confinements. And then what? When the psyche is not under that obligation to live in time and space alone, and obviously it doesn't, then to that extent the psyche is not superior to those who are. And that means a practical continuation of life, of a sort of plychic existence beyond time and space.
Do you yourself believe that death is probably the end, or do you believe that? Well, I can't say the word belief is a difficult thing for me. I don't believe. I must have a reason for certain hypothesis. Either I know a thing. And when I know it, I don't need to believe it. If I don't allow myself, for instance, to believe a thing just for the sake of believing it, I can't believe it. But when there are sufficient reasons to for certain hypothesis, I shall accept these reasons, naturally, I should say we have to reckon with the possibility of so and so.
Well, now you've told us that we should regard death as being a goal, and that to shrink away from it is to evade life and life purposes. What advice would you give to people in their later life to enable them to do this? When most of them must, in fact, believe that death is the end of every moment? Well, you see, you have treated many old people. And it's quite interesting to watch what they're unconscious doing with the fact that it is a parent who is written with a complete end. It disregards it. It life behaves as if it were going on.
And so I think it is better for all people to live on, to look forward to the next day, as if he had to spend centuries. And then he lives properly. But when he is afraid, when he doesn't look forward, he looks back, he petrifies, he gets stiff, and he dies before his time. But when he is living on, looking forward to the great adventure that is ahead, then he lives. And that is about what the unconscious is intending to do. Of course, it's quite obvious that we are all going to die.
And this is the set finale of everything. But nevertheless, there is something in our status to believe it apparently. But this is merely a factor, a psychological factor. It doesn't mean to me that it proves something. It is simply so. For instance, I may not know why we need sort, but prefer to eat salt too, because you feel better. And so when you think in a certain way, you may feel considerably better.
And I think if you think along the lines of nature, then you think properly. And this leads me to the last question that I want to ask you. As the world becomes more technically efficient, it seems increasingly necessary for people to behave communally and collectively. Now, do you think it's possible that the highest development of man may be to submerge his own individuality in a kind of collective consciousness? That's hard and possible. I think there will be a reaction.
A reaction will set in against this communal dissociation. Man doesn't stand forever his nullification. Once there will be a reaction. And I see it setting in. When I think of my patients, they all seek their own existence and to assure their existence against that complete atomization into nothingness or into meaninglessness, man cannot stand a meaningless life. And I think that the world is more than just a mere.