67 / 100
Carl Jung: Am I particularly stupid? Or is it the style?
08138 12bsandor

C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 1: 1906-1950

To Sandor Ferenczi

Dear Colleague, 25 December 1909

I consider it impossible to keep up our analytical relationship by correspondence.

One simply hasn’t the time for so many and such long letters.

Now and then, as you say, a sign of life and no diplomatics when we meet-that is possible.

I am very pleased to welcome you among the collaborators, this time for the second volume.

Sadger tells me that for the 1st half of vol. II he is contributing a case in which he too will expatiate on homosexuality.

I am looking forward to comparing your findings.

Incidentally, your paper on “Introjection” made a great impression here, as also did your previous paper on “Actual” (etc.)

The latter particularly on Pfister.

At present I am once again in terminological difficulties.

The reason why this ahvays seems to happen only to me lies in my teaching activity.

Recently I took issue with Binswanger about Freud’s concept of regression, as to whether it included the infantile element or not. Now it turns out that the concept crops up in two variants.

When Adler demonstrates repressed homosexuality in the dreams of a prostitute, there is a distinct collision with the clinical concept of homosexuality as it actually exists.

In this sense homosexuality is the dominance of this same component in overt acts because of a permanent cathexis, and for that reason it differs from the temporary
cathexis of the homosexual component due to displacement of the heterosexual component.

These and similar difficulties make teaching unspeakably tiring and lead to everlasting misunderstandings.

Freud’s paper on obsessional neurosis is marvellous but very hard to understand. I must soon read it for the third time.

Am I particularly stupid? Or is it the style?

I plump cautiously for the latter.

Between Freud’s speaking and writing there is “a gulf fixed” which is very wide.

Most of all I have disputed with Freud the “symptom of omnipotence” ( ! ) because the term is too clinical.

Naturally he is right, and the term is artistic too.

But if you have to teach that kind of thing in a systematic context, you get goose pimples and take to swearing.

With best greetings,

JUNG ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. I, Pages 13-14