Tag Archives: Carl Jung

Understanding What It Means to Be an Extrovert or an Introvert in the Reading of Carl Jung’s Book “Psychological Types”

Posted on by under Articles

It has been very fascinating to read Carl Jung’s book on Psychological Types. It was in this book that Jung elaborated on the character traits of the introvert and extrovert. What follows is a short summation and interpretation, the way I understand the terms. I briefly cover the dominant features of the introvert and extrovert, their inherent flaws, their defenses, and what it means for both to integrate their opposite disposition into their personality. 

Jung’s typology was not reduced to introversion and extroversion. And as the Myers Briggs personality test shows (which was grounded in Jung’s typology) there are three other pairs to personality (two of which came directly from Jung). Nonetheless, introversion and extroversion are the foundations. With the entire scope of his typology in mind it is important not to reduce the introvert to someone who is more of a “thinking person,” and the extrovert to someone who is more of a “feeling person” since one can be an introverted feeler or an extroverted thinker. Furthermore, both the extrovert and introvert are capable of being outgoing and enthusiastic, but it is the difference in what motivates and attracts them that creates the polarity.

Lastly, Jungian psychology holds that the external world and the internal world are of equal value. Here, the internal world refers to the individual thoughts and sensations generated within the individual that no other person is privy to. The internal world is also the world of the mind, the personal unconscious, as well as the collective unconscious. The last being the repository of recurring themes and ideas related to living and experiencing the world which span the entirety of evolution: 

The extrovert is dominated by the object whereas the introvert is dominated by the subject, more specifically, the introvert is most infatuated with ideas and the extrovert with desires. 

The extrovert is most fascinated with the effects generated from interacting with the objects of the world, with how the world affects them. The introvert is instead more concerned with that which is experiencing the world, more concerned with that aspect of selfhood which processes the world, along with the ideas and sensations that are independently generated within one’s self. 

The downside to the extrovert is that they may lose themselves in objects and experiences, never really stopping to reflect on what is or has happened long enough to develop any real stability or understanding of things.

The downside to the introvert is that they are too afraid of how the world of objects affects them and their state of being in the world. They lose themselves in their own ideas without realizing how much of their own experiences are subjective and interpretive.

Thus, the goal in balancing out one’s disposition is for the extrovert to pause and reflect more. Instead of mindlessly moving from experience to experience, pause and reflect on the reality of the world and one’s self in respect to the objects they are experiencing. Spend time cultivating what you mean, what you believe, what you think, along with how your inner life processes and senses the world. This is important since, when pressed for what they believe, extroverts may not be able to actually elaborate too deeply. They easily settle for euphemisms that are inherently meaningless and give no real insight into the nature of the world and how to live in it. When pressed, they may dismiss the introvert for being “hyper rational” which hides their own inability to reflect or feel deeply. 

For the introvert it is to interact with the world more and allow the world to affect them. Spend time sharing themselves with the world to discover what ideas and sensations are shared with others and which ones are idiosyncratic. Allow the world to affect them more and to exist on its own instead of trying to control it too much or mold it according to their ideas. The introvert too readily disregards the world and others because it does not conform to their own world. When pressed to act, they may insist on the pointlessness of taking any action which hides their own unwillingness to “test” their understandings and have them be tempered by the world of external reality.

What has to be remembered is the Jungian principle that the psyche is inherently compensatory. This means that whatever traits are dominant will be offset unconsciously by what is its opposite in order to maintain equilibrium. Thus, the calm and reflective introvert will have a strong and intensely passionate side that comes out seemingly at random. Ironically, actions taken in such instances by the introvert may end up being rash and may seem inexplicable even though so much time may be spent by the introvert in calculating options. The extrovert on the other hand will have a calculating unconscious consisting of twisted intentions, motivations, and manipulations. Ironically, the motivations underlying the extrovert’s interaction with the world can be surprisingly conniving and calculated even though so much time is spent moving from experience to experience without reflection.

Here, the defense mechanism of the extrovert, which will be used to prevent them from being more introverted, will consist of short and spiteful criticisms regarding how the introvert thinks too much, acts too little, and how important it is to simply “Do what feels good.” The defense of the introvert will be that no one understands them. Furthermore, they may insist on the correctness of their own ideas and protect them through intense emotionality. For the introvert, the extrovert doesn’t reflect or think enough. For the extrovert, the introvert doesn’t act enough. Both criticisms are right to a degree. Both dispositions, if too rigid, will become lost in illusions regarding reality. Both miss the importance of incorporating and cultivating, those aspects of their opposite disposition that will create a more integrated body, mind, and spirit.  

The goal in all of this, is for one to find equilibrium consciously. Thus, the introvert and extrovert cultivate the awareness needed to see how their dominant function is limiting them in living, understanding, and being at peace. From there, both find ways of extending out into the greater world. For the introvert this means a greater willingness to explore and interact with the external world. For the extrovert this means a greater willingness to explore and interact with the internal world. 

Reclaiming the Meaning of Religion

Posted on by under Articles

It has become fashionable to state that one is spiritual but not religious. Usually the distinction is made in regard to highlighting the difference between a practice or set of beliefs that are personal as opposed to collective or dogmatic, and abstract and mercurial as opposed to material and scripted. These are healthy distinctions, relevant to creating distance from one’s personal beliefs and an organization that often obscures it through codification, identity, and fundamentalism.

Recently I have gone back to embracing the words religion and religious, and I have done so, not because my beliefs have come to be more institutional, but because of the root meaning and etymology of the word religion and its meaning, a meaning I feel should be embraced and emphasized since it speaks to something that goes to the core of the human condition. It is possible that such an embrace might make institutionalized religion less dogmatic, while helping other people to understand that religion at heart is a phenomenon that is more human and ever much an essential aspect to the human experience than may be recognized by those turned off by religious fundamentalism.

Etymologically one of the accepted meanings of the word religion comes from the Latin religare, meaning to bind fast or to reconnect.Interestingly this is a similar meaning to the word yoga, which means to bind or to yoke. These are etymological meanings stripped of connotations related to fundamentalist dogma and institutionalism; and indeed, most of us do feel in relationship with something higher. Here ‘higher’ means a felt sense or sensation that there is more to some type of bigger picture than one’s individual life or will and what that will can comprehend, especially in the midst of spectacular experiences.

When people speak of being spiritual they often mention feeling close to or expressing an awareness of something more profound and wondrous, something that seems to defy human cognition or emotion. There is the sense of awe and wonder when it comes to observing nature, or of being in love, or of chance encounters that occur at just the right time; there are feelings that truth is stranger than fiction; that words can’t do many experiences justice; and that some sort of larger script accompanies most of one’s innumerable “sentenced” experiences.

It may seem odd at first to put such sensations and experiences within the realm of religion, but that is only because the word religion has come to take on connotations associated with organized religions and rigid orthodoxies. If one can look past the connotation than one can more comfortably acknowledge a sense for what is happening in those moments in life where one feels entranced or overawed by many of the experiences that accompany it.

Often times there is such a reluctance to embrace religion or even spirituality because one has boxed much of both into the same category without realizing how institutional religion has obscured the original meaning of the word religion as opposed to being in line with it. This is not to deny the relevance to the communal aspect of religion, and the union that surrounds people of a common set of beliefs from getting together.

This is not a deconstruction of organized religion with its strengths and flaws. Rather, the attempts is to encourage people to be more open to embracing the word religion at its original meaning and so open up a person to embracing an aspect of the human experience that I believe is essential to a quality life, irrespective of whether this means using the word God or not.

Carl Jung talked about the religious instinct in human beings. That is, a natural inclination towards the awe, mystery, and wonder accompanying life. More succinctly, he described religion as “A careful and scrupulous observation of that which one regards with awe.” This is an understanding of religion as those wondrous moments being a kind of bedrock for one’s existence, and a kind of compass, something that one can both orient themselves to and be led by in one’s attempt to find meaning in life.

Religion at heart is really about making the wondrous a cornerstone of one’s life. With much of life’s commotion, what keeps us anchored, what inspires us, what do we live for? The joy of seeing one’s children smile? The majesty of a sunset or landscape? The passion of making love? The raw power of many of nature’s phenomenon. The splendor of seeing animals in the wild? The thrill of various adventures and activities? The taste of fine wine, tea, or cigars?

All are variations on the theme of wonder. These experiences bind us to a power that created them, a kind of something, whether one believes it to be the natural order or a “cosmic being”, or both. Whatever the case, one may find it very difficult to have a pleasurable and meaningful existence without fostering an intimate relationship to the spectacular and awe inspiring.

I certainly understand the resistance to embracing or using the words religion or religious, especially in their more common connotational forms. But one need not let the obstructions define them and make one afraid of using them. If we can remember the word in its original sense then we can reconstitute and rehabilitate it so that we stay true to its basic meaning, and help people embrace a core aspect of the human experience, one that can keep us oriented and inspired as we negotiate the task of living and understanding who we are and what we are ultimately connected to.

Religion as That Which Inspires Awe

Posted on by under Articles

Carl Jung defined religion as “A careful and scrupulous observation of that which one regards with awe.” So what is it that inspires awe?

Awe for me is the tenacity of life, the way a small plant finds a way to grow between two slabs of rock, or between a tiny crack in the sidewalk; how a tree will grow on the side of a cliff even with half its roots protruding over the edge; to watch them angle their leaves towards the sun’s light.

Awe is the power of attraction and the force of love, that overwhelming unceasing energy that draws people together whether in the form of a parent/child relationship or between two lovers.

Awe is the experience of something infinite that comes from being able to love and make love without fear and without a need to possess or control.

Awe is the mystery of consciousness, of awareness itself, that ability to know and comprehend that one is.

Awe is the way an infant or a child looks at the world, seeing everything as a miracle through eyes of luminous luster.

Awe is the beauty and charm of a woman and the wondrous life giving, life nurturing qualities associated with the eternal feminine.