Apologies for cross-posting ...

Open Research Seminar 5th May 2010, 12-2pm
Identity, Conflict and Representation Research Centre University of Derby,
Kedleston Road, DE22 1GB, UK, Room N108.
For any queries contact Dr CJP Lee on [log in to unmask]

Jung, Myth and Synchronicity Dr Roderick Main & Professor Robert Segal

Abstracts

Roderick Main, Director of the Centre for Psychoanalytic Studies, University 
of Essex. Author of numerous works, including The Rupture of Time: 
Synchronicity and Jung's Critique of Modern Western Culture.

Myth and synchronicity: Jung's attempt to re-enchant modernity
Jung's writings on myth can be seen as part of his attempt to re-enchant the 
modern world.  However, the success of his attempt is limited so long as he 
sees myth solely in terms of the projection of intrapsychic, albeit 
archetypal, contents.  With the theory of synchronicity, developed late in 
his life, Jung felt able to postulate a parallelism and acausal 
connectedness between inner and outer events that allowed him to find mythic 
motifs not only intrapsychically but also, non-projectively, in external 
situations and events, thus enabling a more far-reaching re-enchantment.  In 
this paper I explore the implications of synchronicity for Jung's theory of 
myth and attempt at re-enchanting the modern world. I also note the role of 
myth in Jung?s presentation of his theory of synchronicity.

Robert Segal, Chair of Religious Studies, University of Aberdeen. World 
authority on Jung and myth.

Does Synchronicity Bring Myth Back to the World?
The course of theorizing about myth in the past two centuries can be 
summarized as follows. In the nineteenth century myth was seen as the 
'primitive' counterpart to natural science, which was taken to be almost 
exclusively modern. Myth and science duplicated each other. But rather than 
no longer being necessary to explain or affect events in the physical world, 
myth proved impossible to accept in the wake of science. Myth and modernity 
were at odds. In the twentieth century, by contrast, myth was seen as 
anything but the primitive counterpart to natural science. Either myth was 
not about the physical world altogether or, less often was not an 
explanation or manipulation of the physical world. Myth was now possible to 
accept alongside science and was therefore compatible with modernity. The 
price paid for compatibility was, however, the removal of myth from the 
physical world.  In the twenty-first century the question is whether myth 
can somehow be brought back to the physical world, yet still be compatible 
with science.   Jung's concept of synchronicity may offer a way.  Whether it 
truly does so is the subject of my response to Roderick Main.