What Is Jungs Definition Of Psyche Do We Have A Shared Psyche What Is Collective Unconscious

Does the Jungian notion of collective unconsciousness have any legitimacy in the light of modern (neuro) science?

Jung came up with the idea of the collective unconscious when he was working at the Burghoeltzli Mental Hospital in Zurich (arguably, the idea has been around in different forms before Jung). He noticed that the visions of some of the patients were very similar to myths found in cultures from around the world. He doubted these patients had been exposed to these cultures personally, and so postulated a symbolic structure of the psyche that belongs to humanity. In other words, the mythological patterns of the psyche can be found around the world in disconnected cultures.Many problems seem to arise, however, when people try to bring Jungian psychology together with neuroscience. The problem, it seems to me, has to do with fundamentally different worldviews. Neuroscience is materialistic and reductionistic in it's conception of the human being. Consciousness is something that emerges from matter, being an epiphenomenon (secondary). In Depth Psychology, the worldview includes direct human experience as the primary source of data by which to form one's worldview in the first place. For example, to understand dreams, we look at people's experience in their lives—their fears, hopes, desires, thoughts, all things that cannot be seen and understood in a microscope, and yet exist, and are powerful factors in quality of life. We then correlate these "things" with the dream content and witness obvious correspondences. In neuroscience, the quest is for the "chemical cause". Phenomena are real if their physical parts are found and labeled. Bringing the world of "meaning" and human experience together with chemical cause is difficult.Often, people don't see that they are embedded in a materialistic, reductionistic paradigm, and therefore see anything that has to do with the human soul, psyche, collective unconscious, as being fairly ridiculous. The gap between worldviews is difficult to bridge. I see this as a personality typology problem.

What do modern psychologists think of Jung's collective unconscious?

I cannot answer directly because I do not know any psychologists. However, my research has mainly been related to Jungian concepts of the psyche, and psychological development, because I have been able to relate it to other areas of esoteric knowledge. It is interesting that by comparing seemingly different areas of study I have discovered that they tend to tell the same story, albeit in a different "language". Not only that, I have been able to resolve differences where authorities on a particular subject disagree.My impression is that the majority of psychologists today do not use Jung's work much. We can generally tell because a Jungian psychologist would be called such, but others call themselves Psychoanalysts, or Counsellors. There are also Transactional Analysts - and others. They do not refer to The Collective Unconscious at all.Jung's work was mainly focused on "The Process of Individuation". That is, psychological development - rather than helping with specific problems.We have to recognise that a psychologists are largely dependent on what their clients needs are at the time. Jung split with Freud because he disagreed with Freud's attitude that everything was due to sexual problems. However, Freud was 19 years older than Jung, and lived in a time when any discussion of sex was a social taboo, and a lot of people got married without knowing how babies were produced.I was very disappointed with a modern book purporting to be about Jungian Individuation which did not seem to contain many of his concepts, and was very unclear. We note that we hear of people receiving counselling, but not of Jungian type. However, the writer made the point that a big influence on Psychology, apart from clientele, was funding. It seems that a big driver of activity is Industry who put a lot of money into research related to advertising their products.

Do you believe in Jung's Collective unconsciousness - what I am I going to type in response to your comment?

Like Carl said of God, he knows. I’ll raise the stakes. I know psychether. Too bad everyone does not know, especially the brains of science who will, eventually, need to adopt to the reality. They have had enough of the dwarinistic madness.And, the collective of the unconscious (whether capitalized or not)? Mere flim flam since Carl could not counter the materialistic trends of his generation who went mad after western unenlightenment. I might say, just like we see know with the dirty cloud and its social media pulling people away from the reality of their existence (living, breathing entities embedded within the psychether).Now, as to some little perturbation on the massive sea of seas? Who cares? Everyone ignoring that the universe(s) is (are) smart only limits them; even collectively, we have little influence.The OP response ‘ought’ to be? Look at how we got to where we did in other than the mode that is currently in vogue with the brains on the planet.