Marie Louise von Franz - An Example of Dream Analysis

Marie-Louise von Franz was a Jungian psychologist who was considered one of Jung's closest disciples. This clip from a documentary called The Way of the Dream. Full video here: • Video

[@innervision97]

She speaks almost identically to Jung. Tuning into these daily. Keep them coming

[@shaboebaboe7482]

Same, here I find myself again.

[@deepster8731]

These clips are gems

[@charlesdahmital8095]

Jung seemed to be clear that when interpreting dreams the dreamer needs to feel that what they are told fits. If it does not then deeper analysis is warranted. I love the look on the interviewers face in that very last frame.

[@kirstinstrand6292]

Some dreams are easy to understand, others can take up to a year or more to understand, if ever. Easiest are Lucid dreams.

[@ml-ec5dw]

Marie-Louise von Franz - one of the most intelligent people I have come to learn about in my life. Her books and the recordings she left for us are priceless.

[@Silentkat1975]

Since youtube has deleted the 10 hour version can anyone tell me where to find it elsewhere ?

[@turner4243]

What did the 10 hour version contain?

[@sandfang]

it's back again :)

[@daviniaedwards1907]

This is good

[@publiusovidius7386]

James Hillman would say she's destroying the dream image and its purpose by over-interpreting it and over-amplifying it.

[@danielantunes1060]

James Hillman does not come near the Intelligence, ability or Wisdom of Ms Von Franz.

[@publiusovidius7386]

@@danielantunes1060 lol. James Hillman's capacities for independent thought and imagination soared far above those of Von Franz, who merely became the obedient daughter of the master.

[@thebrotherhood1675]

@@publiusovidius7386 what is the difference between them both?

[@MrAhuraMazda]

James Hillman is a nothing compared to Jung. And there is no destroying the Dream Image. I dont even know what that means. 90% of dream analysis involves the feeling, the numenosity. There is no such thing as "destroying" the dream image, other than ignoring it. If this is the correct interpretation of Hillman's ideas, he is complete fraud.

[@publiusovidius7386]

@@MrAhuraMazda James Hillman was the director of studies at the Jung Institute for a decade. Jung himself wrote highly of Hillman's abilities and his understanding of Jung's psychology. He has been one of the most influential of the neo-Jungian and post-Jungian thinkers. So saying he is "a nothing compared to Jung" might be something of an overstatement. Here he speaks about what he means by losing/killing the dream image by conceptualizing it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gXe7hpZufdJ2lc0

[@devilinthedetails9665]

So. Essentially, psychic astrology. I've read a couple of books by Franz on interpretation, and was amazed by her leaps of thought (not all justifiable imo). Don't get me wrong, I like Jungian interpretation in general, mainly because the structures and archetypes make sense, but the mystical collective tarot astrology alchemic crap is a big turnout. And Franz is a sucker for this part.

[@landofmystereum]

Can you describe the leaps you experienced? I’m unclear as to the discomfort with the not-knowing you refer to when she Psychic Synapses to leap the space between. It is a scale thing, or do you simply not follow her before you then disparage the mystic and astrological and alchemical as crap as you say? Please as well dial into your ‘sucker’ point.’ Rather than a sucker punch of opinion, please express what you feel. I don’t sense any kind of real anything from your statement except dipping toxic toes into something. I look forward to your clarification so I can experience The full-on, alleged, brunt, of what you seem to be attempting to express.

[@kallenijs]

2nd attempt to reply, gods of youtube indulge me: Franz performs a dream analysis of a description of someone else's dream. This, to me, is problematic: Her first statement is "you could ask the dreamer how they feel, driving in the car with the lady at night", which I think is the core of dream analysis: Deepening the dreamer's understanding of their own dream, and its relation to their life. However, she continues the analysis without the dreamer (perhaps at the request of the interviewer), and makes assertions which, since they're not coming from the dreamer, are about as specific and useful as a tarot-card. Examples: The dreamer mentions Jupiter and Saturn, Franz concludes "great opposing forces, an imminent moment of change". The dreamer gets out of the car and goes for a walk, "a departure from mechanical living, reverting to a slower pace, being in touch with nature". These are warnings or advice you could reasonably give any human being; had she not focused on the car, but on the woman, her advice might have been different. If the dreamer had been present, they might actually have a great fondness of Saturn, or suspicion of the woman, and everything would be different. EDIT: Maybe useful to add an example of what I think a good dream analysis would look like. Franz: "How do you feel, driving the car at night with the lady." Dreamer: "Relaxed, happy." Franz: "Do you ever do this? Gazing at the stars at night on a date?" Dreamer: "No, I'm too busy, too old. But I would love to." Franz: "Go ahead, just try it! Alone, if you have to. How does that make you feel?" Dreamer: "Excited, a little scared. Alright, I'm doing it!"

[@the_famous_reply_guy]

Franz didn't know anything about Tarot or alchemical text, she is imitating Jung because it was his thing after his professional academic career ended. Turns out the occult methods of understanding the self are the most effective and always have been. What modern psychology did was encase the spirit in a tomb jargon as the capitalist system slowly devoured the soul of mankind for the collection of imaginary numbers for the accumulation of stuff. Protestant is code for Capitalism and the history of these white people is one of unabridged evil. Franz was like a virgin Nun, her voice harsh, unkind, cold, clinical because her heart was untouched by love. The dog Jung told her to get ran away several times.

[@EresirThe1st]

Mysticism, alchemy, tarot etc all makes perfect sense through a Jungian interpretation. You’re not thinking deeply enough if you can’t see how it all fits. No leaps are necessary, and calling it crap is an empty dismissal.

[@varshadadiva]

love this woke shit

[@Tvrz]

You have got to try an imganginal

[@ricardomoran1542]

See how well-spoken these people are?

[@Tvrz]

..take out your teeth, keep doing that Jungian thing... Awesome psychological interpretation, phantoms realization of it's own contrived inauthentic projections wispy essence.

[@landofmystereum]

Would you speak more to clarify your words of ‘contrived’ and ‘inauthenrtic’ that lurk in your sentence? I get a substantial pejorative undertone there that jumps to the heights in focus as primary, though as well a Both~And rather than either/or gig that simply runs and/or surfs a rave. Will you please unpack your message, or simply clarify? Polysyllabically, with footnotes if necessary; Those two words stand out in our sentence as both ancillary and contradictory to your intent, at least at the onset. Please clarify. Thank you. I look forward to you saying what you mean sans the adjectival indications twisting in ambivalent arabesques within your sentence. It is a beautiful sentence by the way. It’s just it feels conflicted in regards to its integrative clarity. Will you clarify?

[@the_famous_reply_guy]

@@landofmystereum your reply is inauthentic and incoherent because if you know anything about Franz she has false front teeth and mimicking Jung mannerisms and language and is infatuated with him.

[@landofmystereum]

Hypercolours, inauthentic? :) Certainly no dignity in Difference there in your perspective. Plus, your comment seems overtly superficial. Not surprising, as you do not use your actual name for discussion, stay afar with your false teeth of expression. Infatuated with Jung? Big, Abrazos LOL. She was part of an open ménage a Tori’s with him for 40 years. That’s not infatuation, in the least. Anyways, enjoy jabs with your fake name. It full-on diminishes your position… like a sniper with blanks.

[@the_famous_reply_guy]

@@landofmystereum she was one of several toothless K9's on a leash, a myopic lacky, uncredited for her vast contributions to Jungs papers puffing him up and she had the nerve to called him Lao Tzu when he was simply a pimp, plagiarist and racist.

[@landofmystereum]

@@the_famous_reply_guy That’s quite a funnily superficial response, HyperColours. 1st off, I can’t call you by name, so anonymous comments are, from my perspective, relatively ignorable. 2ndly, Franz and Jung and Emma were in an very public ménage a trois for 40 years. Where is the infatuation you mention? Maybe some limerence, though it would seem that honeymoon period most likely came to term prior to the 1st decade? Your call. Ball’s in your court… so to speak.

[@the_famous_reply_guy]

Franz didn't know anything about Tarot or alchemical text, she is imitating Jung because it was his thing after his professional academic career ended. Turns out the occult methods of understanding the self are the most effective. What modern psychology did was encase the spirit in a tomb jargon as the capitalist system slowly devoured the soul of mankind for the collection of imaginary numbers for the accumulation of stuff. Protestant is code for Capitalism and the history of these people is one of unabridged evil. Franz was like a virgin Nun, her voice harsh, unkind, cold, clinical because her heart was untouched by love. The dog Jung told her to get ran away several times, male dogs are the embodiment of the male spirit.

[@kirstinstrand6292]

Female Intellectuals speak in her fashion of communication.

[@the_famous_reply_guy]

@@kirstinstrand6292 I agree, I know my comment seems unkind to Franz and that wasn't my intention, but to understand her and all the female analysts that wanted Jung because he embodied the Shama and King archetype. Jung was profoundly self aware of his own spirit but not the source of it which ultimately is something unknowable in the universe we reduce to the word God. I feel God exists but I have no proof, I feel conscious and have no proof of it or anyone else's. We are animated clay by a force like gravity we call life, why or how? God knows.

[@Unconditional---love]

You're probably projecting your shadows on her. How do you know her heart is untouched by love? You're assuming things about her and that's projection.

[@the_famous_reply_guy]

@@Unconditional---love we can hear it in her voice, that's not projection, only analysis.

[@Unconditional---love]

@@the_famous_reply_guy The most important lesson I learned in psychology and that changed my life for the best is that we never know the other person, all we do is imagine and assume. Knowing would require we could somehow transport ourselves inside the other person's psyche to see what's really like to be the other person but since we're always on the outside, all we do is to see ourselves projected in that other person. We always resort to our own database to perceive others so it's always ourselves we see.