Paradoxes of the unconscious and possibilities of dual interpretation

The ideas contained in my work "the Psychology of dementia leesah", no
the understanding - colleagues laughed at me. But thanks
I became acquainted with Freud, he invited me to his place. Our first
the meeting was held in Vienna in February 1907. We started the conversation in an hour
in the afternoon and talked virtually without interruption for thirteen hours. Freud was
the first really great man I met. One of my
then friends, I could not compare with him. There was nothing
trivial. It was incredibly smart  insightful and all
respects a remarkable man. And yet my first impression
it was pretty vague, something from me was slipping.
 He has outlined the sexual theory impressed me. However, he failed
definitively to dispel my doubts. I tried, more than once, to present him
these doubts, but every time Freud did not take them seriously, believing that they
due to lack of necessary experience. And he was right: then I
don't really have enough experience to justified objections. I saw that his
sexual theory is extremely important for  it in the individual and in
General philosophical sense. But I couldn't decide whether this was due to the
a reassessment of his own claims, and how much is relied on
the results of the experiments.
 Most of all I was alarmed by the attitude of Freud to spiritual problems.
Where is manifested spirituality - whether human or
a work of art - Freud saw sexuality suppressed. But for
it was impossible to explain sexuality in fact, he coined the terms
"psychosexuality". I tried to argue with him that if this hypothesis is to bring
to logical end, then the whole culture would be nothing more than
the farce a pathological result of suppressed sexuality. "Yes, -
it was agreed, - so, it's some fatal curse against which
nothing we can do". I was not ready to accept this, and even less was ready with
get used to that. But I don't feel worthy opponent of Freud.
 In this, our first meeting was something that took me
the later, meaning that I was able to think and understand only when our friendship
came to an end. Undoubtedly, Freud is extremely close to my heart took everything
concerned his sexual theory. When it came to her, his tone, usually
pretty skeptical, suddenly became nervous and hard, and on the face
was a strange, excited expression. At first I could not understand,
what is the cause of this. But I had the assumption that sexuality
for it was a sort of numinosum (divine. - lat.). This impression
confirmed later when we met in Vienna three years later (in 1910).
 I still remember, as Freud said to me, "My dear Jung, promise
me that you will never abandon the sexual theory. This above all else.
See, we must make dogma of it, an impregnable Bastion". It
said it with passion, in the tone of a father instructing his son: "My dear son,
you have to promise me that you'll be every Sunday to go to Church".
Hiding the surprise, I asked him, "a Bulwark - against what?" - "Against the flow
black mud, - for a moment Freud stopped and added, - of the occult". I was
not a little alarmed - these words "bulwark" and "dogma", because the dogma
indisputable knowledge that is established once and for all and not
admits of doubt. What science then can there be, it is not
more than a personal dictatorship.
 And then I realized that our friendship was doomed; I knew
never be able to come to terms with such things. To "the occult," Freud,
apparently, they carried everything that philosophy, religion and in
these days parapsychology knew about the human soul. For me and sexy
the theory was the same "occult", that is nothing more than unproven
the hypothesis, like any speculative construct. Scientific truth, in my
understanding is also a hypothesis, which corresponds to the present day and
which may not remain constant at all times.
 Much was not yet available to my understanding, but I noted in Freud
something similar to the interference of some unconscious religious factors.
Apparently, he was trying to protect against this subconscious threat and recruited
me.
 After our conversation I felt completely confused: me and
in never occurred to me to consider the theory of sexuality as a kind of
a risky venture, which, however, should be faithful.
Obviously, for Freud, sexuality meant more than to others,
it was for him a kind of religiose observanda res (thing, worthy
religious devotion. - lat.). Faced with such ideas, usually
lost. So all my feeble attempts looked pretty insecure, and
our conversation soon stopped.
 I was shocked, confused and puzzled, as if I got a whole new,
unknown country, I dreamed about new ideas. But another became clear also:
Freud, who always appreciated the tolerance, freedom from dogmatism,
have now created their dogma. Moreover, the place lost the terrible God
he put the other idol's sexuality. And this idol was no less
capricious, captious, cruel and immoral. As well as extraordinary
spiritual power in fear give attributes of the "divine" or
"demonic" and "libido" was to play the role of deus
absconditus, a hidden God. This "replacement" gave to Freud obvious
advantage: he had the opportunity to consider a new principle nominatie
as scientifically perfect and free from the burden of religious tradition. But in
the basis still was nominationthe - shared psychological property
two opposite and irreducible rationally polar opposites - Yahweh and
sexuality. Changed only the title, and with it, respectively, and
point of view: the now lost God was at the bottom and not the top.
But if some power still exists, is there a difference in how
be called? If psychology did not exist at all, and there were only specific
things, nothing would be worth destroying one of them and replaced with another. But in
reality, that is, in psychological experience, remain the same
persistence, shyness and coercion - nothing disappears without a trace. Anywhere
not disappear and the eternal problem: how to overcome fear or get rid of
conscience, feelings debt, coercion, or subconscious desires. And since we didn't
able to solve them relying on something bright and perfect, then, should not
to contact dark forces, biological?
 This idea came to me suddenly. But its meaning and significance I understood
much later, when I analyzed my memory of the character of Freud. He
there was one feature that I especially was taken:
there was some bitterness. It struck me when I first arrived in Vienna.
And I did not find this explanation until I saw this tie in with his
the idea of sexuality. Although for Freud, sexuality is, of course,
meant a sort of numinosum, however, and in the terminology, and in the
the theory he seemed to describe it solely as a biological function. And
only the excitement with which he spoke about sexuality, showed how
deeply it affected it. The essence of his theory was - as me
if anything, it seemed that sexuality contains a spiritual force
or has the same meaning. But too specific terminology was too
limited to this idea. It occurred to me that Freud really was moving
in the direction of right opposite its own goals, acting in such
way, against himself - and there is nothing worse than the realization that you
your own worst enemy. According to him, Freud always felt a sense of
he's about to fall in a "stream of black mud" and,
which is more than anyone, was immersed in its darkest depths.
 Freud never wondered why he always wants
to speak about sex, why in his dreams he was always going back to one
and the same subject. He did not understand that such monotony
the interpretation of the mean running away from yourself or maybe from other
perhaps mystical side of self. Not acknowledging its existence, he
could not achieve peace of mind. His blindness in all that concerned
paradoxes of the unconscious and possibilities of dual interpretation of his
content not allowed him to realize that all the contents of the unconscious
has its top and bottom, its inner and outer sides. And if we're talking
on its external side, namely it was done by Freud, we mean only
half the problem that causes the normal in such situation the unconscious
opposition.
 With this Freudian unilateralism was nothing they could do about it.
Perhaps it could "enlighten" some inner experience, how can I
I think, and then his mind would consider any such experience manifestation
the only "sexuality" or, at worst, "psychosexuality". In
a sense he was defeated. Freud seems to me a figure
tragic. He, no doubt, was a great man, and yet -
touching defenseless.