One fascinating thing about studying Jung is that when you start to understand his psychological school of thought, it's as if the symbolic world starts to speak to you in that way. Like studying him gives you a container for what's needed to be expressed but couldn't before manifest. It's one of the many reasons he's one of my biggest influences. Yes, many fascinating ideas. A brilliant thinker. But the simple fact that as you pick up his work, you see it working through your life is quite amazing.
One of the things I’ve started to suspect is at the moment you make it clear to the world that you are interpreting it symbolically the volume goes up quite a lot. It also learns which ways you are listening for me it’s movies and music.
Mm yes would agree on both fronts. When I started listening to and interpreting my dreams, they came more frequently and vividly. I've also seen that once you open up an avenue for it to provide knowledge, it will use it if the circumstance dictates it. Love the music and movie pathway. One of the many reasons art is so beautiful. Serves as a beacon containing latent spiritual/psychological material and finds people who need to be in that space/receive that material at that time.
What surprises me about the people who glorify Carl Jung is that they rarely seem curious about the human being behind the myth, the one who coined the term individuation (the process of becoming psychologically whole) while quietly splitting his life into compartments so that no single person would ever see the full picture.
Emma (wife) for social legitimacy, Toni Wolff (decades-long mistress) for intellectual stimulation, and his study as a refuge from the children he couldn't stand to be around.
He was an emotionally absent and authoritarian father, and started intimate relationships with his patients.
Don't get me wrong, his work is remarkable, but Jung himself understood the shadow better than he ever lived it, and understanding it is so much easier and more satisfying than the far messier project of actually living differently because of it.
This matches what I have seen with shamans, coaches, therapists, and gurus in my spiritual journey over the last decade.
Often, they fail to embody what they preach.
I’d rather look at what a person does when nobody is looking.
I agree totally with the idea that it’s important to examine the life and integrity of the teacher. That said, at no point within LE has Jung himself been “glorified” but his work has proven super influential. Sounds like you know more about his personal life than me but listening to his interviews, he does speak glowingly about his children and grandchildren. You can get a partial excuse to the romantic affairs with the cultural norms at the time but honestly, that’s pretty flimsy. I think what Jung can speak to is that he was willing to go to the very limits, psychologically in terms of insanity in order to model his own philosophy, which is something that Kingsley makes a big point of emphasis. So yes, it’s complicated but actually Jung is better than most in my opinion and certainly never held himself out to be a guru as far as I’m aware.
Fair enough. I obviously know you and enjoy your stuff so always going to read, but I’ll very rarely open articles with that AI aesthetic on the cover these days. Personal taste of course. But just wondered given how vocal you are about LLM writing.
Yeah that’s interesting and noted given I might be turning people off. But honestly it’s one of those “co creative” uses of AI that I feel enhances me.
Thank you so much for this beautiful and thoughtful piece, Tom. We know AI is a huge hot button issue right now, which is part of why it means so much to have someone actually spend time with what we’re building before deciding what they think about it.
A big part of what we care about with MOODS is being able to take an idea seriously without handing your judgment over to it. I think the same applies to the thinkers and traditions we inherit. I love Jung’s work. I also don’t need Jung to have been a perfect man to find enormous value in some of his ideas, many of which drew from traditions that were around long before him. We can look honestly at what he got wrong, take seriously what he got right, and decide for ourselves what’s worth carrying forward.
I feel similarly about AI. There are uses of this technology that concern me deeply. There are also uses in science and medicine that could genuinely improve or save lives, along with possibilities none of us can predict yet. I don’t want to walk away from the conversation and leave the future of this technology entirely to people whose values I may strongly disagree with. I’d rather participate carefully, put real limits around what we build, and be willing to change things when we get them wrong.
MOODS is our meaningful and inevitably imperfect attempt to do that. We wanted to see whether AI could be useful for self-reflection without turning into another authority telling people who they are or what their experiences mean. The person using it should always have the final say. And whatever happens while you’re using MOODS should eventually send you back into your actual life. The screen should never be the destination.
That’s why Tom writing about his own experience means so much to us. He used MOODS for weeks. He brought his own Jungian practice into it, kept his skepticism, and wrote about what actually happened. That’s exactly how I hope people approach what we’re making. Use it, and by all means, question it. Keep whatever you find useful, and tell us when you think we’ve gotten something wrong.
Tom, I have so much respect for the independence you bring to your work, and Zaz and I are incredibly grateful that you were willing to bring that same independence to ours.
And to anyone here who decides to give MOODS a try, even tentatively, thank you. We genuinely want to know what you think. You can always reach us at support@moodscodex.com. Zaz and I both see the messages that come in there and read them ourselves.
What a useful piece Tom - looking forward (tentatively at least) to exploring MOODS amd have signed up on the strength of your user review.
Very curious what you think. It’s by no means perfect but it is opened up a new dimension of my personal expirations and for that I am very grateful.
One fascinating thing about studying Jung is that when you start to understand his psychological school of thought, it's as if the symbolic world starts to speak to you in that way. Like studying him gives you a container for what's needed to be expressed but couldn't before manifest. It's one of the many reasons he's one of my biggest influences. Yes, many fascinating ideas. A brilliant thinker. But the simple fact that as you pick up his work, you see it working through your life is quite amazing.
One of the things I’ve started to suspect is at the moment you make it clear to the world that you are interpreting it symbolically the volume goes up quite a lot. It also learns which ways you are listening for me it’s movies and music.
Mm yes would agree on both fronts. When I started listening to and interpreting my dreams, they came more frequently and vividly. I've also seen that once you open up an avenue for it to provide knowledge, it will use it if the circumstance dictates it. Love the music and movie pathway. One of the many reasons art is so beautiful. Serves as a beacon containing latent spiritual/psychological material and finds people who need to be in that space/receive that material at that time.
Great piece as always, Tom!
What surprises me about the people who glorify Carl Jung is that they rarely seem curious about the human being behind the myth, the one who coined the term individuation (the process of becoming psychologically whole) while quietly splitting his life into compartments so that no single person would ever see the full picture.
Emma (wife) for social legitimacy, Toni Wolff (decades-long mistress) for intellectual stimulation, and his study as a refuge from the children he couldn't stand to be around.
He was an emotionally absent and authoritarian father, and started intimate relationships with his patients.
Don't get me wrong, his work is remarkable, but Jung himself understood the shadow better than he ever lived it, and understanding it is so much easier and more satisfying than the far messier project of actually living differently because of it.
This matches what I have seen with shamans, coaches, therapists, and gurus in my spiritual journey over the last decade.
Often, they fail to embody what they preach.
I’d rather look at what a person does when nobody is looking.
- How are they as father/mother?
- How are they as husband/wife?
- How do they treat their friends?
- How do they show up with strangers?
This is the only work that matters after all.
“those who preach god, need god
those who preach peace do not have peace
those who preach peace do not have love
beware of the preachers” - Charles Bukowski
I agree totally with the idea that it’s important to examine the life and integrity of the teacher. That said, at no point within LE has Jung himself been “glorified” but his work has proven super influential. Sounds like you know more about his personal life than me but listening to his interviews, he does speak glowingly about his children and grandchildren. You can get a partial excuse to the romantic affairs with the cultural norms at the time but honestly, that’s pretty flimsy. I think what Jung can speak to is that he was willing to go to the very limits, psychologically in terms of insanity in order to model his own philosophy, which is something that Kingsley makes a big point of emphasis. So yes, it’s complicated but actually Jung is better than most in my opinion and certainly never held himself out to be a guru as far as I’m aware.
Genuine question: For someone who hates AI writing so much, how come you use AI generated images so heavily? Why not just use a photo of Jung?!
Because I love generating AI images. They make me think more about what the core message of the article is and it makes me more creative. Bit YMMV.
Fair enough. I obviously know you and enjoy your stuff so always going to read, but I’ll very rarely open articles with that AI aesthetic on the cover these days. Personal taste of course. But just wondered given how vocal you are about LLM writing.
Yeah that’s interesting and noted given I might be turning people off. But honestly it’s one of those “co creative” uses of AI that I feel enhances me.
Thank you so much for this beautiful and thoughtful piece, Tom. We know AI is a huge hot button issue right now, which is part of why it means so much to have someone actually spend time with what we’re building before deciding what they think about it.
A big part of what we care about with MOODS is being able to take an idea seriously without handing your judgment over to it. I think the same applies to the thinkers and traditions we inherit. I love Jung’s work. I also don’t need Jung to have been a perfect man to find enormous value in some of his ideas, many of which drew from traditions that were around long before him. We can look honestly at what he got wrong, take seriously what he got right, and decide for ourselves what’s worth carrying forward.
I feel similarly about AI. There are uses of this technology that concern me deeply. There are also uses in science and medicine that could genuinely improve or save lives, along with possibilities none of us can predict yet. I don’t want to walk away from the conversation and leave the future of this technology entirely to people whose values I may strongly disagree with. I’d rather participate carefully, put real limits around what we build, and be willing to change things when we get them wrong.
MOODS is our meaningful and inevitably imperfect attempt to do that. We wanted to see whether AI could be useful for self-reflection without turning into another authority telling people who they are or what their experiences mean. The person using it should always have the final say. And whatever happens while you’re using MOODS should eventually send you back into your actual life. The screen should never be the destination.
That’s why Tom writing about his own experience means so much to us. He used MOODS for weeks. He brought his own Jungian practice into it, kept his skepticism, and wrote about what actually happened. That’s exactly how I hope people approach what we’re making. Use it, and by all means, question it. Keep whatever you find useful, and tell us when you think we’ve gotten something wrong.
Tom, I have so much respect for the independence you bring to your work, and Zaz and I are incredibly grateful that you were willing to bring that same independence to ours.
And to anyone here who decides to give MOODS a try, even tentatively, thank you. We genuinely want to know what you think. You can always reach us at support@moodscodex.com. Zaz and I both see the messages that come in there and read them ourselves.