Thanks so much for getting Dr. Hollis on your show. I really admire this man. He’s so authentic and insightful and has such a nice tone, both verbally and in his writing.

I found the quote you referenced. It goes:

“Our culture has become so heterogeneous, and has lost its mythic moorings in any case, that we can only transmit twentieth-century beliefs in materialism, hedonism and narcissism, with some computer skills thrown in.”

I love that quote, particularly since I’m in a technology field and can really relate to how our often empty, shallow, mean-spirited culture is relentlessly driven into our face with various tech tools, gadgets and applications.

His other book, Finding Meaning in the Second Half of Life is also really outstanding. His insights about the role of our families of origin, the unconscious, dreamwork and what he calls “the agenda of the soul” I feel are really central to life and to examining our lives in therapy.

Dr. Holli’s books are also very accessible. Jung can be pretty dense and impenetrable, but Dr. Hollis presents Jung’s ideas through his own filter and makes them very understandable and applicable.

Finally, I absolutely love this quote of his from your interview, in regard to therapy and dreamwork:

“Ultimately, this work is humbling. It’s not meant to make us feel great about ourselves…it’s more about coming to a more realistic and authentic relation to ourselves and our journey.”

Thanks for another great interview.
Russ

I enjoyed the podcast and subsequently your article very much.

Investigating non-mechanical processes in mind-matter relationship in general and medicine in particular is so much needed.

Best.

I was overjoyed to hear about the straight out Jungian course – Peter B. Todd and I were actually conversing about this today, and I was just talking to a psych friend yesterday about the idea. I wonder if they have an Open University style correspondence option? I imagine a large number of people (myself included) would jump at the chance to be able to “just study Jungian” – everything’s CBT over here in Perth, Australia!

I’m not sure if I misinterpreted your sentence, but if we look at the world’s population and the number of scientists therein, there are probably more scientists who are ‘creationists’ than there are aetheists/evolutionists, etc, or at least something like an even split. You have to realise that there are countless Muslim scholars, Christians, Hindu, Jewish, and so on, who are all in the fields of science. Does this mean they aren’t genuine scientists? Does being a scientist mean you have to believe in evolution only? Or could this be a cultural bias, reflecting a current zeitgeist? If examined from a psychological viewpoint, a strong and dogmatic belief in evolution is just as much as a ‘religion’ as Christianity, Islam etc. You will do well to ask yourself how your viewpoint will look in two centuries time, and if people will still be holding on so dogmatically to Darwinian *theory*.

“Let’s not evade the implications of Philemon, Basilides, Salome, haunted houses & automatic writing.”

What really is the problem with these phenomena in MDR and the Red Book? Is it because they reflect a kooky character, who we can’t then take seriously? Let’s not forget that neither Memories, Dreams, Reflections, nor the Red Book are presented as scientific texts, but are merely autobiographical. And almost everyone runs into some kind of phenomena at some point in their lives that can’t be rationalised.

I guess the thrust of this argument is, are you mixing up scientific argument with character assassination, and why shouldn’t a psychologist explore issues that are currently considered paranormal?

CG Jung: “Show me a sane man, and I’ll cure him for you”.

(a) The archetypes as the “cosmic, ordering and regulating principles” referred to in the Jung/Pauli correspondence are verifiable in both the phenomenological and external worlds. Laurikainen, who wrote the book titled “Beyond the Atom: the Philosophical Thought of Wolfgang Pauli: Springer-Verlag reprinted in (1988) concerning this correspondence was himself a professor of high energy physics until his death in 1997.

(b) I was among the first to operationally define and measure unconscious mental processes including ego-defenses and affects in a study published in 1978 and discussed in episode 240 of this podcast series. This and Jonathan Shedler’s paper explored in episode 236 consign archaic notions that depth psychology and psychoanalysis are pseudosciences to the status of historical relics of thought relevant only to the dark age of radical behaviorism.

(c) The operational definition of a term is simply one specifying the empirical, observational procedures used to identify it. As noted in my 1978 paper, even such a logical positivist philosopher as Herbert Feigl regarded the case for the scientific status of psychoanalysis as particularly favorable provided that its central terms were operationally defined, measured and used in testable scientific predictions.

(c) Shedler has already covered the status of psychoanalytic psychotherapies in terms of evaluating measureable outcomes in episode 236 and his paper in the “American Psychologist”, March-April (2010)

(d)Technologies such as fMRI scanning may enhance such evaluative research. Predictions of the impact of unconscious factors on serious illness mediated through measurable changes in the neuroendocrine and immune systems in such fields as psychoneuroimmunology are also relevant to Freud’s “Project for a Scientific Psychology” and hypothesis testing in depth psychology and psychoanalysis.

Secondly, with regard to Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” criterion applied to scientific theories, I would suggest that John Danzer actually listen to both the Jonathan Shedler podcast, episode 236 and my own, episode 240 which address the necessity for operational analysis and measurement in testing hypotheses derived from various psychoanalytic theories.

The efficacy of psychoanalytic psychotherapies including Jungian requires rigorous measurement of unconscious mental mechanisms and intrapsychic processes, as Shedler clearly argues in his podcast.

Much of my podcast concerns the extent to which psychoanalysis has already been put on the map of empirical scientific respectability through operational analysis and measurement of theoretical terms.

May I suggest that John Danzer makes himself familiar with this material and with relevant scientific publications before engaging in unqualified and poorly informed attacks on Jungians and psychoanalysts. The fields of psychosomatic research and neuropsychoanalysis contain copious research relevant to the construct validation of theories from depth psychology and psychoanalysis.

It is easy to attack Freud and Jung on the basis of scientific projects which could not be completed in their lifetimes because relevant technologies did not develop until later.

Let me remind you of the fallacy of invoking an authority in one field (Pauli – Theoretical Physics) and using his success in his field as legitimizing another field. Pauli\’s opinions are not necessarily science just because he made his living as a scientist. There are some \"scientists\" who believe in creationism. The method of determining whether something is indeed scientific is whether it is a testable and therefore falsifiable hypothesis.

When you consider the evidence on which Jung based his theories (synchronicity for example) you find that the only proof presented are personal experiences or alleged experiences with clients.

The interview about the Red Book would have its listeners seriously consider the idea that Jung was invisibly pulling the strings to make his Red Book available to the general public at this \"critical\" moment. While I believe in the sincerity of Jung\’s devotees how can anyone with a serious interest in the presentation of psychology as a science take this seriously?

My use of the word \"channeller\" would be very acceptable to Jung who in his day considered himself in some ways possessed and funtioning as a medium.

Let\’s not evade the implications of Philemon, Basilides, Salome, haunted houses & automatic writing.

Why should you believe Jung when he does these things? Sylvia Browne is just a \"Jung\" for the masses.

Yes. You are absolutely right. The antidote for fear, anxiety and nervousness is the cultivation of courage. There are a variety of ways to do this. The most useful for my clients has been to write out your own Courage Story.

Bravery and valor are arguably among the most important of the 24 character strengths. And they fall within the virtue cluster of courage. I’ve always found a truckload of truth in this quotation: “The secret of life is this: When you hear the sound of the cannons, walk toward them.” So let me ask you to think back over your life:

“What’s the most courageous thing you’ve ever done?”

Sample answers I’ve heard: Moving across country to a new city without a job…. Going back to school as a single parent with an infant….Staying with my dearest friend as she died of cancer…..Learning to dance at 60…Applying to a graduate program at UC Berkeley….

Mine was facing down my own social anxiety to do a daily primetime radio show.
What’s yours?

Writing Your Courage Story.

Write a succinct one page story about the most courageous thing you’ve ever done. The time period could range from minutes to days or months to years. Be sure to give your story a clear, crisp ending. Elements to include might be:
• The context,
• What you feared,
• Why it required your courage,
• What your experience felt and looked like (details are good)
• How you acted despite the fear,
• And be sure to give your story a clear, crisp ending.

The “ordering and regulating” in the depths of the unconscious psyche is the common, ontological source of science and religion.

I would refer sceptics to the book published by the late K.V. Laurikainen titled, “Beyond the Atom: The Philosophical Thought of Wolfgang Pauli”, Springer-Verlag, (1985). This scholarly text explores the extensive correspondence between Jung and Pauli in exquisite detail, restoring Jung to his rightful place in the history of ideas.

I discussed the Jung/Pauli collaboration and the scientific understanding of the unconscious in episode 240 of this series. It also explored the measurement problem in the verification of psychoanalytic theories.

John Danzer, it became apparent fairly early on to CG Jung that the human psyche couldn’t be approached only from a rationalist scientific view point, and that there’s a whole other end of the spectrum in human experience. Religion comes from the deepest parts of the human psyche, and or a psychologist to ignore it and its effects would be ignorant and show a cultural bias. I’m not sure if Western culture is going the way you say it is, but in CW1, Jung noted that Spiritualism occurred in the US in particular when the national psyche was becoming too rational, and a compensatory effect occurred. John Beebe noted that The Wizard of Oz seemed to come out when the collective psyche was becoming too masculine.

There are two ends to every spectrum, and a psychologist needs to experience or at least understand both to do any decent work.

The Strong, Sensitive Boy

-john

Dave, you seem to have a love/hate relationship to these esoteric subjects. And I appreciate your frankness in voicing skepticism on the one hand and fascination on the other.

I have read a couple biographies on Jung and it so clear that he was a fraud. He was just another \"channeler\" To me he\’s no different than Sylvia Brown. Shame on those who so idolize him that they spend good money on a book that should be a penquin paperback.

Being a doctoral student in counseling, I sometimes find myself burnt-out by constant writing and research. This podcast reminded me of my passion for the field of counseling/psychology.

Cheers!

I have also used EFT extensively on myself and I am continually amazed how unconscious material will spontaneously arise as I go through the tapping process. What seemed to be the issue in the beginning just somehow opens up and usually leads to what the real issue is. I have learned to not be too concerned about where I start with it, as it will go where it needs to.

One thing I rarely hear talked about in regards to EFT is the self forgiveness aspect of it; in making the statement \’Even though… I deeply and profoundly love and accept myself,\’ one is doing deep self forgiveness and ultimately forgiveness is what healing is all about. Even in situations where forgiveness of others seems to be what is needed, when the layers are peeled away there is always some aspect of unforgiveness of the self that has to be addressed.

I thought this was a great interview apart from the rambling style that another commented on. That is just how Bill is, he doesn\’t have a great presentation style, although I\’m sure he would disagree!

I truly understand everyone\’s complaints about him, as I\’ve struggled myself with his arrogance and his pressured marketing techniques over the years. It\’s a shame that he can\’t seem to get it into his head that the product is so good that it doesn\’t need the kind of tactics he uses to sell it. Maybe it\’s a case of once a salesman always a salesman.

I have been using HS for 7 1/2 years and am just starting the last 1/3rd of the program. One difficulty I have had with assessing it\’s efficacy is that I have done a lot of other work as well – regular therapy, intensive dreamwork, A Course in Miracles, EFT and as of 2 years ago – zazen.

I have come to the conclusion that I have had a lot of resistance (i.e. fear) due to unresolved childhood trauma which had been reinforced in adulthood and gradually become more and more consolidated. I was in my 50\’s when I started HS.

I still have doubts from time to time about whether it is actually working or not but those doubts usually pass and I am committed to seeing the program through.

The zazen has been very helpful. I struggled with why I would need to do it if HS is so effective, but I think that is the nature of transformational work – it\’s like having a varied diet rather than just eating rice all day, every day. You can survive on rice every day – many people do – but how much healthier is it to have a varied diet?

Another gripe which I have never understood is the cost. HS is costly but it\’s peanuts compared to psychotherapy and there are many other things I could compare it to.

I have learned a lot from Bill Harris over the years – both directly from his teachings, (which are very sound) and from working honestly with my own negative reactions to his personality and marketing ploys.

Successful people will always come in for criticism and there is no doubt that Bill is both hugely successful and talented, notwithstanding his personality style.

Here in Australia it\’s called the \’Tall Poppy Syndrome.\’ In the name of fairness and equality we \’cut down\’ the tall poppies. Another name for it is jealousy.

Ultimately, the only way to assess anything is to \’suck it and see.\’ I deliberated for over a year before committing to trying it and it was about 3 years before I opted for the whole program option but I am very glad I did.

However, since this spill Americans have been very quick to say “British Petroleum” instead. I can’t help but feel that this is some way of Americans distancing themselves from this problem by having a clear-cut villain to project their anger onto. It can mean that it’s no longer “us” (to Americans), but “them”, and indeed, there’s been a great deal of anti-British sentiment since the incident.

It seems like an awfully convenient way of dealing with the problem emotionally. If we go back to the Shadow, the US is infamous worldwide as ruthless oil consumers and drillers, with the need for oil often being seen as a reason for even invading countries. Now the Shadow has come to the surface almost literally (a big black thing has covered US shores!), and one way of dealing with that would be to find an external villain to shift the blame to, such as BRITISH Petroleum.

But exactly how British can a company like BP really be in today\’s multi-national corporate world? If people were honest with themselves, there’s really little to no difference between them and an outwardly American company.

So next time you find yourself specifically saying “British Petroleum” instead of BP, ask yourself: is it to shift blame onto an external tormentor, or is it a way of hiding from the fact that we’re supporting a corrupt system that rapes the ground we walk on? Every time you fill up that car, or open that bag of chips, or use a plastic supermarket bag, or…… (you get the picture)

I think that the idea of humankind’s collective shadow being manifest in the destructiveness of nature demonstrated in the BP oil spill was mythopoetically and beautifully expressed.

Just as such global “summonses” as HIV and climate change mean confronting such archetypal “shadow” qualities as metaphysical materialism and consumerism in the developed world.

I just wanted to suggest an idea for a future podcast.This might cover the epistemological “psychophysical problem” and the nature of the mind/brain/consciousness interfaces.

Although discussed in my “Mind and Matter” paper in section 4, this issue deserves, I believe, a more comprehensive treatment than was possible in our interview.

I have mentioned Professor Harald Atmanspacher to you. Another possible guest might be neuroscientist Professor Karl Pribram at Georgetown University.

He published a very provocative paper “Consciousness re-assessed” in the “Mind and Matter” Journal, 2004, 2(1) pp 7-35.

I do hope that these ideas are useful to you and thanks again for our interview.

Cheers!

The dominance of the CBT paradigm has meant that doctrine has often precluded observation and funding for research has rarely been available. Doctoral level research testing hypotheses derived from psychoanalytic theory has historically been almost impossible in academic psychology. Research has therefore been conducted largely within departments of medicine, sociology and anthropology. As my own bio suggests.

Jonathan Shedler says more in episode 236 of this podcast series about evaluating the efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapies.

Specifically, from the Land where CBT rules, (Australia) many thanks for the fascinating and illuminating interview with Peter B. Todd – validating, for those of us who don’t subscribe to the current reductionist paradigm, to have this wider perspective given voice, especially by one who has clearly made such a substantial contribution to the field.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code.html

Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions?

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html

Thanks so much for your thoughtful response to my comment, and thanks for taking the time to provide some more information on the techniques and resources you use in your practice.

It’s encouraging to know that there are therapists like yourself out there with such a wide variety of skills and depth of knowledge to help others. I especially appreciate your ideas about getting past the conscious mind in order to help people address their problems.

Thanks again,
Russ Cobb

It has downloadable interviews on it http://www.grandtheftchildhood.com/GTC/Home.html

Can you please post a reference to the America-Israeli research you mentioned just near the end of the podcast?

Thanks, and keep up the good work!

However, I feel I need to play a little Devil’s Advocate here because her approach to the problems of the wounded parts seems just a little too neat and easy for me.

For example, the idea of putting one’s inner critic in a box and sending it to outer space while it receives therapy…I’m sorry, but if that inner critic is built upon a set of really solid beliefs about the self (many of which aren’t even conscious) – and/or if it’s the result of someone having identified with and internalized an abusive or neglectful parent – I can’t imagine this strategy being very effective. You cannot simply tell a split-off, self-hating part of the self to be quiet and go away until it’s ready to fully integrate into the whole person as a healthy aspect of the self. I mean, you can tell it anything you want, but I doubt it’s going to obey. After all, it’s part of the resistance to change, why would it want to comply?

Another thing I would question a little is her statement that “no amount of talking will help those wounded parts.” Isn’t talking about it one way of revealing those wounded parts and seeing what’s really at work? For example, if one’s unconscious material is leaking out in the form of dreams, isn’t talking about the dream content necessary to delve into the “frozen package?” Maybe I’m just taking her too literally.

I’m also curious about the other techniques she mentions (EMDR, tapping, visualization etc.). Specifically, I’m curious to know if they are effective when the client doesn’t have a lot of specific memories of, say, a damaging relationship with a parent, or if there are a lot of very buried, unconscious conflicts at work.

And how do the visualization techniques (like with the seal) deal with a situation where the part that is visualizing the wounded seal of the self turns out to be entirely hostile to it and is not willing to be kind, compassionate, healing or comforting to it?

I guess I’m just a little bit skeptical that things like long-standing, unconscious conflicts and/or intense self-hatred can be resolved so easily and quickly.

It seems to me that if what you’re up against is a set of life-long beliefs about yourself – and if there’s a whole set of layered resistance set up to keep those beliefs in place – that there may be a lot more work involved than Ms. Radcliffe seems to imply.

In any case, great show, Dr. Dave.

I just wanted to say thank you for your Shrink Rap Radio and Wise Counsel podcasts and interviews! I discovered them today and have been listening for the past few hours.

As a patient for over 20 years in the mental health system, I have a lot of experience with the many different aspects of the field of psychology. I have also done so much reading and research on my own to try to find help for my issues. Considering all that, I have to say that your podcast interviews are the most helpful resource I have ever found. You have made these psychology and mental health experts accessible to the layperson interested in learning more about the field without diluting the information. Your interview style really gets to the heart of what’s most important and useful for people like me who need this information urgently.

Specifically your interview with Jonathan Shedler was very helpful to me because of my long-term involvement in psychodynamic therapy. To understand what it is and why it helps is difficult enough to explain to myself let alone others who have not had the experience. Your interview clarified my thinking about psychodynamic therapy and allayed my doubts about its efficacy. It was just what I was (unconsciously) looking for.

Thank you again for sharing this information in such a great way. I really appreciate that you have given a forum for those in the field of psychology to share what they know directly with us listeners.

Keep up the good work! I look forward to listening to your future podcasts and past archives.

As an Aussie with an interest in a psychodynamic approach – especially Jungian – I’ve been shocked to see that our educational structures barely even touch upon it. I’ve talked to Aussie psych students about various psychodynamic concepts only to get a blank stare! I’m interested in becoming a certified, studied, piece-of-official-papered psychologist, but not in the current courses available here in Perth!

Where psychoanalytic theoretical frameworks and therapies have been ritually debunked as pseudoscientific while being ousted from mainstream academic psychology in favour of the dominant CBT paradigm. In Australia, CBT, DBT and IPT (interpersonal therapy) have been represented as the only empirically supported or “evidence based” approaches to psychotherapy, with a monopoly upon medicare rebates for treatment and research funding alike.

In fact the “resistance to psychoanalysis has been so extreme as to preclude research which would be considered for doctoral degrees. Psychoanalytically oriented psychologists have been compelled until recently to conduct post-graduate research outside of academic psychology, for instance, in medical faculties or departments of sociology and anthropology.

I believe that there are two primary components to the empirical evaluation of psychoanalysis. One is the verification of hypotheses derived from various psychoanalytic explanatory theories in such fields as psychosomatic research and neuropsychoanalysis. This is simply the empirical testing of robust and useful scientific predictions from theory.

The other component and the subject of Jonathan Shedler’s paper, is the ongoing evaluation of the efficacy of psychodynamic approaches to therapeutic intervention for the personality and emotional disorders outlined in such sources as DSM-IV and the outcome of immunologically mediated and resisted diseases in which unconscious mental factors have already been shown to be predictors of prognosis or outcome. Examples include cancer and infections such as HIV/AIDS.

I have published research in peer-reviewed scientific journals relevant to these issues. One was on the operational analysis and measurement of unconscious ego-defences and affects in women with symptoms of breast cancer in the British Journal of Medical Psychology (1978), 51(2), 177-189. Another more recent paper was published in the “Mind and Matter” journal, (2009), 6(2), 193-206. It was titled, “Unconscious Mental Factors in HIV Infection”. The methodology in the 1978 paper involved the rating of video-tape recorded, psychoanalytically oriented interviews and would be applicable to studies evaluating therapeutic process and outcome.

Jonathan Shedler’s provocative paper has generated not only a renaissance of interest in psychodynamic psychotherapies. It has certainly created considerable controversy in psychological circles especially “downunder” in Australia where CBT doctrine has continued to preclude observation and dissident research!

P.S. Psychics would have surely taken up the one million dollars James Randi is offering them?

\"the Foundation offers a $1,000,000 prize to any person or persons who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind\"
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/about-the-foundation.html

But here are a couple of sites for comic relief:

HAVIDOL – “for the treatment of Dysphoric Social Attention Consumption Deficit Anxiety Disorder (DSACDAD).”
http://www.havidol.com/index.php

FDA Approves Depressant Drug For The Annoyingly Cheerful. “Despondex – the first drug designed to treat the symptoms of excessive perkiness.” Onion News video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd4tugPM83c

In my opinion – based on my own experience – part of why psychodynamic therapy has gotten such a bad rap is simply because it is really, really, really hard work. It can also take a long time and cost a lot of money. And it’s true that finding the right therapist can also be very difficult.

Working through and examining things like transference, resistance and defences, dreamwork, fantasy, the unconscious – and coming to terms with extremely unpleasant feelings, thoughts, desires and beliefs – this is all really difficult work and requires that the client engage in looking at him/herself in ways that can be extremely uncomfortable.

Who in the world wants to sign up for this? I sure as hell didn\’t, and after two years of therapy, I still struggle with taking responsibility for my own progress and doing the work involved with getting to the root of what it is that brought me to therapy in the first place. But, for me, this is how I get there. A dozen sessions of some kind of brief, CBT-type therapy would be a total waste of time in my own case.

One could say that analysis is about looking at the truly ugly side(s) of who we are, and accepting it. Or exposing maladaptive beliefs about ourselves that are unconscious yet are causing the kind of internal conflicts that result in horrific symptoms of anxiety, depression, or a hundred other manifestations.

And here\’s the hard part…the patient has to do the work. The therapist can only guide the way.

So here\’s the problem in my opinion. Success in analysis requires the kind of work, patience, commitment and diligence that has become antithetical in American culture; a shallow, superficial culture that now strives for comfort and convenience at all costs. And presenting a rosy, external image of our lives as being wonderful and in control requires that we repress and deny the things that actually make our lives hellish and out of control.

We want our problems to go away RIGHT NOW, and we don\’t want to have to put much effort into it, either. So it makes sense that these new, brief therapies are so popular now.

I\’m not saying that psychodynamic analysis is the only one, true way of realising true wellness. I\’m saying that it represents an approach (and a depth) to self-examination that seems out of step with the quick-fix shallowness of our culture these days. So it makes sense that there’s a lot of “evidence” that it’s not effective.

I want to commend you for your excellent interview with Dr. Shedler. Your discussion of academic politics and special corporate interests cloaked in the presumed objectivity of science was illuminating. The points you made do not get stressed enough. It’s truly impressive that your podcast provides a forum for such unmitigated insights.
The other excellent observation was with regard to the importance of a therapist’s expertise and adaptability in determining the success of his or her approach–regardless of philosophical orientation.
Human beings cannot be reduced to quantifiable symptoms. We live in an age where humans are treated as machines. Everything is about the so-called “evidence” of clinical studies that are still open to interpretation. This paradigm needs to change if we are to appreciate the full scope of our human experience. The “scientific” seal of approval carries more weight than it deserves. In the spirit of science itself, we should be skeptical of those who further certain claims because of vested financial interests.
A similar thing occurs in secondary education. It’s not unusual to find theoreticians who prescribe all sorts of “solutions” to classroom challenges. Unfortunately, many of these individuals have abandoned the classroom for lucrative seminar opportunities. Their research is often muddled with ambiguous terminology and so-called “research.” Teachers still at their jobs are often bludgeoned with the recommendations of these disingenuous “experts,” but one fact remains: those educators who utilize their experience and maintain the flexibility to understand different learning styles are the ones who are respected by all. There is no one solution to anything. A willingness to keep learning about ourselves and others is far more rewarding than merely accepting a scientific result as a fact. Each person deserves respect for his or her uniqueness; a symptom is one of many contingencies. There can never be a one-size-fits-all manual.
Thanks again, Dr. Dave, for providing such a sophisticated discussion to your listeners. Your podcasts are always genuine learning experiences.

Mike

As explained by Elizabeth Mika in her article on my site, the theory (often referenced in writings on giftedness) includes the concept that “Development takes place through the process of positive disintegration, which is the loosening and partial, or sometimes global, dismantling of the initial character structure during the course of one’s life and replacing it by consciously created personality.”
http://talentdevelop.com/articles/DTOPD.html

I think that psychoanalysis has gotten a very
bad rap in the field and I believe that it is time
to consider a an organized professional
“rapprochement”. I also believe that a global
approach that includes what we continue to
learn about the brain is essential for helping
professionals.

I would like some further clarification about
Asperger’s and the implications of the new
DSM V classification. I do not think that I fully
understood what was being explained. Also, how it will effect families and individuals who
are impacted by this “difference”?

Regards,
Jennifer

I also enjoyed Dr. Sherman’s insight on marriage/relationships along with her practical tools and strategies. Very informative!

I believe that self-disclosure is something that characterizes your podcasts and may explain why people like them. Keep up the good work.

/ Robin

Thanks for the interview – particularly liked the Castor and Pollux image for the human and divine sides of us. I’d like to look into that further. Have just started reading Johnson’s ‘Inner Work’ as part of my own training…

You mention after the interview that Jerry Ruhl wanted us to know that there are lectures for free on http://www.junghouston.org. I looked at the site and couldnt find any mention of this although there are CDs of courses for sale. Just thought you should know.

Thanks again, Tony

In my experience (and keep in mind that I’d consider myself an advocate of Binaural Frequencies), I’ve found the efficacy to be almost random, with many people feeling no discernible effect, others experiencing meditative-like bliss, and some people have bad physiological reactions. So far I have no real idea what common factors lies between these groups of people, and about the only thing I’ve noticed is those who react often have an “N – iNtuituve” typology. But I’m sure even in the coming months I’ll come across something that blows that idea out of the water!

He looks like an interesting guest, indeed. Thanks for this suggestion!

I read Jung’s “The undiscovered self” perhaps a month ago, then I found your podcasts and have listened to at least one almost every day since.

If you want to do another interview concerning parapsychology then Adrian Parker at University of Gothenburg http://www.psy.gu.se/personal/adrian_parker/ might be a good “victim” , though it may be difficult to arrange an interview.

Best regards / Robin C. Mörck

Yes that works, thanks a lot,

Rohan

I’m not sure what the problem is. It plays for me in iTunes and also here on the site. Have you tried downloading it from the website instead of from iTunes?

David

I can’t seem to download this podcast from within iTunes. I have been able to download other related ones like #10 and #182. Hope it can be fixed.

Thanks a lot, take care,

Rohan