RESUMEN

This article describes the growth and development of Daniel as a master Biblical dream interpreter. In his clinical use of dreams, he is compared to a contemporary Jungian analyst who faces difficult clinical dilemmas such as interpreting a dream that is forgotten, understanding the difference between a 'big dream' and a personal dream, as well as the situation when a dream is interpreted within a dream. Daniel's technique is compared to traditional Jewish dream rituals. Although the Book of Daniel is usually considered as a series of disconnected episodes, the author argues that the sequence of chapters reveals the process of Daniel's individuation as described by Neumann's concept of centroversion.

Cet article décrit la croissance et le développement de Daniel en tant qu'interprète biblique spécialiste du rêve. Dans son utilisation clinique des rêves, il est comparé à un analyste Jungien contemporain, face à de difficiles dilemmes cliniques tels qu'interpréter un rêve qui est oublié, comprendre la différence entre un « grand rêve ¼ et un rêve personnel, ainsi que la situation dans laquelle un rêve est interprété dans un rêve. La technique de Daniel est comparée aux rituels traditionnels juifs concernant les rêves. Bien que le Livre de Daniel soit généralement considéré comme étant une suite d'épisodes décousus, l'auteur soutient que la séquence des chapitres révèle le processus de l'individuation de Daniel telle que décrite par Neumann par le concept de centroversion.

El presente artículo describe el crecimiento y desarrollo de Daniel como maestro Bíblico intérprete de sueños. En su clásico uso de los sueños, es comparado con un analista Junguiano contemporáneo quien se confronta con difíciles dilemas clínicos, tales como, la interpretación de un sueño que es olvidado, comprender la diferencia entre un 'gran sueño' y un sueño personal, así como también la situación en la que un sueño es interpretado dentro del sueño. La técnica de Daniel es comparada con el ritual tradicional Judaico de los sueños. Si bien el Libro de Daniel es considerado usualmente como una serie de episodios desconectados, el autor argumenta que la secuencia de los capítulos revela el proceso de individuación de Daniel tal como es descripto por Neumann y su concepto de centroversión.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Neste artigo a autora procura dialogar com as ideias desenvolvidas por Freud na sua obra A interpretação dos sonhos (1900) ­ que validou o sonho como ato psíquico e inaugurou outra forma de interpretá-lo, incluindo o próprio sonhador na sua compreensão ­ e posteriores desenvolvimentos psicanalíticos que colocam o processo de sonhar em destaque. Duas vinhetas clínicas são apresentadas para considerações sobre a (im)possibilidade de sonhar(AU)

In this paper the author seeks dialogue with the ideas developed by Freud in his work The interpretation of dreams (1900), which validated the dream as a psychic act and showed another way to interpret it, implying the dreamer himself in its understanding. Later psychoanalytic developments that place the emphasis on the dreaming process. Two clinical vignettes are presented in order to reflect upon the (im)possibility of dreaming(AU)

En este artículo la autora busca el diálogo con las ideas desarrolladas por Freud en su obra La interpretación de los sueños (1900) ­ que validó el sueño como acto psíquico y inauguró otra manera de interpretarlo, incluyendo el propio soñador en su comprensión ­ y desarrollos psicoanalíticos posteriores que ponen el énfasis en el proceso del soñar. Se presentan dos viñetas clínicas para consideraciones sobre la (im)posibilidad de soñar(AU)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This paper responds to a recent paper by Wolfgang Giegerich entitled 'Two Jungs: apropos a paper by Mark Saban'. Giegerich disputes my assertion that the 'rigorous notion' at the heart of his psychology 'finds no source in Jung's psychology, implicit or explicit'. In order to do this he posits the existence of two Jungs, an exoteric Jung and an esoteric Jung. The implications of Giegerich's binary scission of Jung are explored in this paper, and show that the tendency to exalt one Jung while disparaging the other betrays a comprehensive blindness toward the contradictory complexity of Jung's psychology as a whole. It is suggested that this blindness is the consequence of Giegerich's systematic prioritization of a neo-Hegelian agenda that is in profound conflict with the telos of Jung's psychology.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Jung's idea of the 'personal equation' amounts to the reflection that theoretical differences between the psychologies that people teach are rooted in their personalities, in other words, that they are due to the psychology each one 'has'. This concept also applies to different interpretations of Jung's work. The serious difficulties that Mark Saban has with my psychology are a case in point. Recourse to the concept of the personal equation reveals that Saban has his Jung and I have mine. With his insistence on his Talmudic methodological principle of dream interpretation, that 'the dream is its own interpretation', according to Saban Jung means nothing but a rejection of Freudian free association. My Jung goes far beyond that. Jung understands this methodological principle above all in terms of what he calls 'circumambulation'. The main part of this paper is devoted to an elucidation of what circumambulation involves as a mode of dream interpretation. The paper concludes with the distinction Jung himself introduced between two types of reading of his work, either as 'paper' and 'dead nostrums' or as 'fire and wind', and pleads for a reconstruction of Jung's psychology as a whole in terms of his most advanced, deepest insights, instead of a dogmatic reading mainly based on the early Jung, a reading for which his later revolutionary insights are at best negligible embellishments.

Asunto(s)