A Jungian essay on BD

Found the following Jungian paper about BD interesting but decided not to quote it in case is copyright. It can be read here: http://pueretsenex.blogspot.com/2012/01 ... -none.html

I get the general idea that moods are somehow accompanied by imagination and thoughts, but my question is, does changing the way you imagine somehow change your moods?

thoughts?

Does changing the way you imagine change your mood?

I suppose it depends on what you men by imagining. If you imagine in the manner of picturing your glass as half full instead of half empty or being in a beautiful place then yes. I was going to say this sort of links to mindfulness which does affect mood but on second thoughts it doesnt as mindfulness is about being in the moment whereas imagination is not. Yes i think there probably is a role for imagination to influence mood. Bright imaginings bringing bright mood and dark ones bringing dark mood. Whether or not this is because it affects biochemistry or has more of a role on our psychology (which I guess also affects biochemistry, thanks Jester ) I am not sure.

Cracked

Hi CrackedGirl,

Thanks for your response. I was thinking exactly the same thing that the long tradition of active imagining (as they call it) in the Jungian world is identical to the very recent fad of mindfulness. The advantage of the Jungian approach is that it has had 100yrs of refinement whereas mindfulness as practiced in popular therapy today has only been around for a decade or two at a stretch. The longer something is around the more it has a chance to be perfected, at least thats what I'm thinking now.

Jung hemself apparently had to utilize imagination to deal with his emotional breakdown, there's a quote from his autobiography Memories, Dreams, Reflections,

"To the extent that I managed to translate the emotions into images –that is to say, to find the images which were concealed in the emotions– I was inwardly calmed and reassured. Had I left those images hidden in the emotions, I might have been torn to pieces by them. There is a chance that I might have succeeded in splitting them off; but in that case I would inexorably have fallen into a neurosis and so been ultimately destroyed by them anyhow. As a result of my experiment I learned how helpful it can be, from the therapeutic point of view, to find the particular images which lie behind emotions."

Anyways its all very interesting and have never heard of this method before.

It is very interesting and thanks for making me think too

Cracked

Hey, thanks for this post. I will definitely have a look at it. Jungian concepts are fascinating.

FYI FWIW, an kindle essay on same:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007WK48X6



Book Description

A Jungian Approach to Bipolar Disorder (manic depression) brings together perspectives on the subject from both Jung and later Jungians. The essay will be of interest to both professional therapists and laypersons interested in alternative readings on the nature and psychodynamics of bipolar disorder.

Mindfulness is a concept and a practice that has been around for the past at least 3,000 years , not a decade or two. It appeared long before psychotherapy came into existence. It's a foundation of Buddhism and Yogi's philosophy. The fact that people in the West started considering mindfulness as something useful just recently doesn't negate the fact of its existence in the East for the last several thousand years

Jungian active imagination has nothing to do with mindfulness. It's a rather dangerous method that takes you quite forcefully to the depths of your unconscious in order to bring out powerful forces that remained stale in you for many years. It's dangerous exactly because it doesn't respect where you are in the moment and takes you to places where you may not be ready to go. I happened to know something about Jungian analysis because I had undergone a psychoanalytic training. and my two therapists who I had done most of my work with were Jungian. I have also read a lot about Jung's and Freud's biography and history of psychoanalytic movement. Jung, as genius as he was, did a lot of harm to himself and his patients with his dangerous experimentations.

By the way, I don't mean to reject or diminish Jungian vision of mental illness as a whole. The vision itself is fascinating and empowering, but the methods that he used could be far from safe and healthy. Also, when some Jungian speaks about "Jungian" approach to treating BD or any other disorder from DSM, keep in mind that it was not Jung who came up with this approach. Jung had no idea what BD was as this diagnosis didn't exist at the time when Jung was alive just like many other dxs from DSM. When someone speaks of "Jungian" approach to treating some mental disorder, it's some Jungian analyst who has developed his own vision of how to treat this disorder using Jungian concepts, so it's just one Jungian analyst's subjective vision. I wouldn't be surprised if someone who had no formal training in Jungian analysis developed a "Jungian" approach to treating say ADHD just because he heard or read something about Jungian theory. I am just saying that as fascinating as the theory may be, it may be wise to take it with a grain of salt in terms of their validity as a treatment method.

Hi Monkey,

If you read the above comment about mindfullness being around "for a decade or two at a stretch" you will see it referred strictly to mindfullness "as practiced in popular therapy today". Mindfullness -as practiced or advocated by many psychotherapists today- has important conceptual differences to the older religious models of mindfullness (in terms of methods, language, and goals), even though the two overlap to some extent. The differences are significant and important, though I'm not interested in dissecting them here. In short, modern and ancient are not one and the same thing.

Jungians definately practice minfullness in relation to imaginal contents of the psyche- they prescribe watchfulness and awareness of these contents. In fact such mindfullness can be considered the modus operandi of the Jungian therapist and the jungian method, and Jung himself devoted much of his written corpus to this method which he named "active imagination" (Jung says active imagination is all about cultivating a critical awareness and control in relation to imagination). I'll have to politely disagree with your curious assumption about Jungian method as "a rather dangerous method that takes you quite forcefully to the depths of your unconscious in order to bring out powerful forces that remained stale in you for many years". Perhaps that was your experience. This is nothing remotely close to anything I have ever heard recommended or written by qualified Jungian therapists, most of whom are outwardly cautious about "forcing" anyone to go to any dark depths.

"Jung had no idea what BD was as this diagnosis didn't exist at the time when Jung was alive just like many other dxs from DSM"

Of course BD was named recently, but Jung was very aware of manic-depression when he wrote his long published paper on the subject in 1903, where he gave five long case stories which recognise literally all of the features we today list in the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for BD. In fact Jung's 1903 paper recognised and advocated for the very first time in history a division between manic-depression involving psychosis, and manic-depression without psychosis- he was the first to push for this diagnostic distintion to be made between these two forms of the disorder.... it only took the DSM 90 more years to pick up on Jungs suggestion! So I think its a bit unreasonable to say that jung had no idea what BD was- he may not have heard that label but he was very aware of the condition and associated behaviours, just calling it by another name. And those post-Jung Jungians do indeed base thier approaches to BD largely on Jung's early and later conceptualisations of this condition, and on his view of the psyche generally. What's more is that the Jungian conceptualization offers a fascinatingly different approach to those currently enjoying popularity in the mainstream- not that I would tear down any approach.... there is something out there for everyone.

Ok, not going to argue I believe, there comes a point when every subject becomes largely a matter of one's personal interpretation of it and it is silly to argue over perceptions and interepretations. Yes, you are correct, I have a personal experience with Jungian analysis in general and active imagination in particular whereas you, as you said yourself, have just read or heard about it, and, I know (also from experience) that the knowledge that comes from experience is more valuable than theoretical knowledge, but that, again, it is a matter of personal perception. After all, life has convinced me that everyone will believe what they want to believe so whatever..So, let's just agree to disagree