What Dreams May Come?

Number 137.  Was this the key to understanding the Universe?  Or was it an impossible Dream?

It was a kind of Dream Team.  One was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics.  The other was an internationally famous psychiatrist.   They both were interested in Dreams.  Other than that, they are an odd pair.  So was their relationship.

He had felt like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde.  He didn’t know what to do about it.  He was a Rational.  He was a scientist, and the leading scientific skeptic: the gadfly of quantum mechanics.  He had the ear of Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg – the supreme Rationals of the day. They put up with his caustic wit for he was good at finding problems with their theories: the Mephistopheles of Physics. Successful professionally, but his private life was a mess.  What was he do?

By the day he was about Science, at night he had frequented the bars of the red-light district of Hamburg: he knew his relationships with females was out of control. His Mister Hyde — he hid this from his colleagues –  he was embarassed.  He felt he was in crisis. He decided to consult with that famous psychoanalyst, Carl Jung – secretly.

Carl Jung was interested in the “mind.” He viewed himself as an intrepid explorer of psyche.   He had adopted Freud’s interest in analyzing dreams, but he had his own unique, and lucrative techniques.   Those rich female European ladies of Vienna and Zurich had money to burn and all the time to talk, and maybe other things.  “Archetypes” was his word, and the “collective unconscious” was his game.  What did all those dreams mean?  Symbols, myths, intuition, ESP — what was the truth? The Idealist, Carl Jung was eager explore and analyze The Rational, Wolfgang Pauli’s, dreams.

*********

Carl Jung, a Counselor Idealist, and Wolfgang Pauli, an Inventor Rational, — quite a pair. Both Carl Jung and his initial mentor and eventual opponent, Sigmund Freud, were interested in exploring things that are not observable — “thoughts,” “feelings.”  Not scientific by hard science standards. And both Freud’s and Jung’s favorite, “dreams,” served as a major part of their research methodology. And as it turns out, for many years, many of the “dreams” that Jung analyzed and published in his volumious works were Wolfgang Pauli’s.

Pauli never acknowledged in his lifetime that his interaction with Jung was significant — that he had done some “psychoanalysis” with Jung for his problems. But, he did benefit from it, he felt better eventually, being able to “talk about things,”  — maybe. And Pauli believed not everything in Science was accessible by reason.   Pauli eventually would write down his own dreams and communicate them to Jung.   He corresponded with Jung the rest of his life. Pauli’s personal crisis had passed, but he hoped that he could make progress in physics by examining his dreams – his “unconscious” and his numeric “archetypes” – like 137, the mystical number associated with the fine structure constant.

Deciphering the Cosmic Number”  is a book about Wolfgang Pauli and his science, and Carl Jung and his interaction with Pauli  – and underlying problem of the limitations quantitative (objective science) and versus the limitations of qualitative (subjective science).  Pauli died before he could solve the 137 mystery.  Moreover, he noticed that the hospital room he ended up in when he was hospitalized:  “It’s [room] 137, I am not going to get out of here alive.”  He didn’t.  His last request was to speak to Carl Jung.

 For last year’s words belong to last year’s language

 and next year’s words await another voice.
T.S. Eliot

Explaining the fine structure constant,  1/137.035999 — a mystery number to this day — is a dream of mine.

8 thoughts on “What Dreams May Come?

  1. Sonya June 4, 2011 / 12:56 am

    Just curious, do you think ‘talking about things’ with a therapist is helpful?
    What do you suggest for ‘therapy’?

    Like

    • David Keirsey June 4, 2011 / 3:57 pm

      This question is difficult. I have too much to say about it. So, briefly psychiatry is in the dark ages, mostly a grave hazard to your well being, at worse a waste of money. Psychology is in the medieval ages (better than psychiatry). On the other hand, there are therapists that are good, if few and far between. Some Glasserian, Alderian, or Ericksonian therapists might help — who knows — it’s a crap shoot for sure.

      Psychotherapy, as practiced by Jungian or Freudian (or derivatives) “therapists” is ineffective. Pauli was lucky, his “problems” weren’t difficult. ‘Talk’ therapy is mostly crap — it doesn’t work. On the other hand, “talking about things” sometimes might help, just as the normal “getting things off your chest” (without paying a costly “expert”) might help as well. I am wondering if the book “The Voice” by Brian Alman would be useful for people (Brian Alman was a student of Milton Erickson, and “self-hypnosis” (focused self-talk) might work for some people). I don’t know.

      You must take what I say with a grain of salt: I am not a psychologist, only a son of a psychologist. There is much to say about things: such as a very very brief brief on madness.

      Like

      • Sonya June 5, 2011 / 7:58 pm

        Thank you so much for your reply. Very interesting. I think the ‘getting things off your chest’ (without paying a costly ‘expert’) sounds like what would be most helpful for most people, most of the time. Going to read the link you included now.

        Like

  2. the most irrational rational January 8, 2016 / 1:30 pm

    Well, Jung has stated that he was an INTP (rather ambiguously).
    It was also confirmed by Marie-Louise von Franz (in a video) and this time very clearly. She also claimed of being an INTP as well. Similar duo. The best Jungian analyst after Jung stated by CG Jung.

    You can find both videos on Youtube.
    It is kind of ludicrous that people type CG Jung as non INTP type. The most essential mind behind it. Using jungian derivative typological notation on non jungian typing system in this context is ridiculous and funny.

    Like

    • David Keirsey January 8, 2016 / 4:54 pm

      Whatever floats your boat. First, KTT is “based on Kretschmer” not on Jung. Of course, I don’t “type” Jung as a Myersian “INTP” and Jung wouldn’t have used Myers notion of “type” — to describe himself, rather he would have used terms and phrases like the “flow of libido from the subject to the object” — which I would guess is an “archetype” in his “mind”. I suggest Jung was a Counselor Idealist, based on my observations on some of the material on Carl Jung in the literature, and videotapes and films of him and my dad’s theory of human action. Reasonable, if to you irrational.

      Jung is of a different time, and a different circumstance, so it doesn’t really matter what we model him as — whether we think of him as a practitioner of “that dangerous method” (as Hollywood is wont to do), or a heretical German-speaking counselor to “mental patients”, or writer of many books.

      Yes there is the danger of a single narrative or single opinion (as a single story) but that is better than no story or a lost story.
      http://blog.keirsey.com/2011/12/08/ihumanbeing/

      http://blog.keirsey.com/2014/11/08/the-danger-of-a-single-story/

      Lastly here is another Counselor Idealist who you might check out.

      http://blog.keirsey.com/2013/05/01/the-binding-counselor/

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s