Program

Download the flyer as PDF

Thursday 18th Oct

Hörsaal 102, Kollegienhaus

Registration

Welcome and Introduction: Christian Roesler (University of Basel), Marianne Müller (President IAAP).

18.00 – 20.00 Keynote Lecture:

Mark Solms, PhD, Capetown, South Africa

Title: THE UNCONSCIOUS IN PSYCHOANALYSIS AND NEUROSCIENCE

This presentation will focus on two issues. Firstly, I will consider the different meanings of the ‘unconscious’ mind in psychoanalysis and cognitive neuroscience. How can we reconcile these different meanings (and the findings upon which they are based) with each other? Secondly, I will consider the different functions attributed to ‘consciousness’ in psychoanalysis and affective neuroscience. Recent findings suggest that the part of the brain which generates consciousness performs the functions that Freud attributed to the ‘id’, while the parts of the brain that support ‘ego’ functions are intrinsically unconscious. What are the implications of these contradictions for psychoanalysis today?

After talk invitation: “Apéro riche” at Wildt’sches Haus (Baroque Palais at the Petersplatz)

Friday 19th Oct.

Zunftsaal GGG, Gerbergasse 24

Registration

9.30 Opening remarks

Marianne Müller (President IAAP), Christian Roesler (University of Basel)

I. The relationship of consciousness and unconscious

Chair: George Hogenson (Jung Institute Chicago, USA)

10.00 – 10.45 Presentation 1:

Isabelle Meier (ISAP Zurich, Switzerland)

Title: “Recent developments in Complex Theory”

The complexes are considered to be the royal road to the unconscious (Jung, CW 8, § 210), as well as the  conflict theory of Analytical PsychologyHowever there are different complex concepts among Jungians. The presentation will first look at complex theory  from a developmental perspective, in which the complex develops from the frustration of basic need. Then it will be demonstrated how  new complexes can arise from archetypal images, if the basic need for meaning is not fulfilled in the course of life. The presentation will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Analytic Psychology compared to Jeffrey Young’s schema therapy, which is also based on the lack of fulfillment of basic needs, with the purpose of engaging in the debate among schema therapists.

10.45 – 11.00 Break
11.00 – 11.45 Presentation 2:

Philip Kime (C.G. Jung Institute Zurich)

Title:  “Meaningful coincidence, individuals and the unconscious”

It is commonly thought that synchronicity, characterised as „meaningful coincidence“ is understandable in terms of some sort of connection, relation or conformity between conscious and unconscious. I will explore this  by comparing synchronicity with synchoricity – coincidence in space rather than time. These two concepts are often mixed together and I will attempt to describe „pure“ synchronicity and synchoricity in an attempt to sharpen our sense of how meaning is felt to arise from coincidence. It will be then suggested that the common idea of synchronicity is a rather arbitrarily narrow and psychologically faulty concept which, if widened, compromises the relevance of putative synchronicity to individuals. I will conclude that this implies that the question of the “relationship” of conscious and unconscious is in fact a malformed question and indicate further lines of enquiry which I believe also point to this conclusion.

12.00 – 13.00 Panel Discussion

Participants:

George Hogenson (chair)

Harald Atmanspacher (Collegium Helveticum/ETH Zürich)

Alexander Borbely (University of Zurich)

Philip Kime (C.G.Jung Institute Zurich)

Isabelle Meier (ISAP Zurich)

13.00 – 14.30 Lunch Break 

II. The controversy around the concept of archetypes

Chair: Christian Roesler (University of Basel)

14.30 – 15.15 Presentation 1:

John Merchant (Sydney, Australia)

Title: “An overview of current conceptualizations of the archetype”

Over the last twenty years there has been an ongoing debate within Analytical Psychology as to how archetypes should be understood. This presentation will begin with an overview of these contemporary approaches to archetype theory and will outline the radical nature of certain deductions. Some have argued that archetypes are merely ‘symbolic forms’ which are not biologically based. Culture and socialisation are then seen as central in evoking psychological content that is experienced archetypally. In this way ‘archetypes’ may only be labels from categorization so that there is no ‚archetype an sich‘ as a pre-existing entity at the core of a complex driving its formation. Often such positions are based on the findings of current neuroscience (which were unavailable to Jung) but which are calling into question one very thing on which the classical theory is built – innatism – making it difficult to conceive of archetypes in any preformationist sense. Alternatives to the preformationism position disavow a genetic underpinning to archetypes but rather invoke emergentism, Dynamic Systems Theory, self-organisation and socio-cultural underpinnings in explaining the emergence of symbolic imagery. These positions see no need to posit an objective psyche as a pre-existent psychic structure to elucidate the manifestation of such imagery. In a similar way, Knox’s (2003) image schema model purports that the ‚archetype an sich‘ is a developmentally produced mind/brain structure which sets up the emergence of later imagery. Such a view understands archetypes to be biologically based on the one hand, but without being genetically inherited and innate on the other. It will be argued that without the developmental component of this model, emergentism may only be providing half the story. An emergent/developmental model of archetype may be more appropriate. The contemporary research evidence from neuroscience, genetics and embryology which supports each of the above models will be outlined and an illustrative case example will be presented.

15.15 – 16.00 Presentation 2:

George Hogenson (Jung Institute Chicago, USA)

Title: “The foundations of Jung’s theory of archetypes. Bergson and the somnambulistic unconscious“

This presentation will argue that much of the debate surrounding Jung’s theory of archetypes derives from a failure to take fully into account the influence of Henri Bergson on Jung’s thinking. I will suggest that once these aspects of Bergson’s influence on Jung are fully explored many of the apparent contradictions in Jung’s theorizing may disappear, and that a clearer path forward in the theory of archetypes will become evident.

16.00 – 16.30 Coffee Break

 

16.30 -17.30 Panel discussion

Participants:

Christian Roesler (chair)

Erik Goodwyn (University of Louisvilla, KY, USA)

George Hogenson (Chicago, USA)

Nancy Krieger (ISAP Zurich)

John Merchant (Sydney, Australia)

 

19.00 Evening Program:

A talk by Thomas Fischer, Foundation for the Works of  C.G. Jung, Zürich

C.G. Jung and the University of Basel

Thomas Fischer will give a historical overview of Jung’s time at and lifelong connections to the University of Basel. For C.G. Jung’s 80th birthday in 1955 the University of Basel sent him an officially sealed document evoking the long-standing ties to his Alma Mater and honouring his life and work. The paper was signed by the Dean of the Medical Faculty and the President of the University. Jung was genuinely pleased by this gesture and gratefully thanked for the honours. The document not only recalled Jung’s own studies in Basel and his short appointment to the Chair of Psychology at a later point in his career, but also mentioned his father’s ties as well as the important role that Jung’s grandfather, Karl Gustav Jung the elder, played in building up the Medical Faculty in Basel in the 19th century. Less known – and probably remembered by no-one anymore at the time of his 80th birthday – was Jung’s earlier disappointment in his hometown University. After finishing his doctoral dissertation at the Zurich psychiatric clinic Burghölzli he had hoped to return to Basel and receive the right to lecture (Habilitation) at the University, but his important members of the local society blocked his wish. In private, Jung referred to this incident as the “Basel calamity”, which contributed to him remaining at the Burghölzli and establishing his early academic career at the Zurich University. The call in 1943 late in Jung’s life to the Chair of Psychology in Basel, therefore, came as somewhat of a recompense and personal satisfaction for the repudiation suffered at his hometown University forty years ago.

Saturday, 20th Oct

Hörsaal -101, Alte Universität

III. Analytical Psychology, Psychoanalysis and contemporary Psychotherapy Research

Chair: Harald Atmanspacher (Collegium Helveticum/ETH Zürich)

9.30 – 9.45 Opening remarks
9.45 – 10.30 Presentation 1:

Michael Buchholz (International Psychoanalytic University, Berlin)

Title: “Psychotherapy Research in Psychodynamic Psychotherapies: State of the Art”

Right from the start of psychotherapy process research (PPR) it was an open question how psychotherapy works and what could be considered the essential ingredient of an “intervention”. After contrasting a “medical” vs. a “contextual” model in PPR using all meta-analytic studies available Bruce Wampold (2001, 2015) concluded that the contextual model won the battle. I want to give a rough outline of the history of these research endeavours highlighting some difficulties and solutions that have been found. At the end I will make a proposal where to direct attention and research efforts in the future.

10.30 – 11.15 Presentation 2:

Christian Roesler (University of Basel)

Title: “Psychotherapy Research in Jungian Psychotherapy: current status and future directions”

Jungian Psychotherapy has long been blamed for not giving any empirical proof of its effectiveness. Since the 1990s several research projects and empirical studies on Jungian Psychotherapy, its outcome and process have been conducted mainly in Germany and  Switzerland. The talk will first give a critical overview of the studies and results. Even though all the studies show significant improvements, there are serious problems with the participation of Jungian analysts in empirical studies, and up to date no randomized controlled trial of Jungian psychotherapy has been conducted. In the second part, the talk will give an outline of future research, which includes central clinical concepts of Jungian psychotherapy, namely the Word Association Test, and a systematic documentation of dreams, pictures, sandplay etc. as well as methods for analysis of these data. This aims at combining quantitative effectiveness research with qualitative in-depth analysis of single case studies and the psychotherapeutic process.

11.15 – 11.30 Break
11.30 – 12.30 Panel discussion

Participants:

Harald Atmanspacher (chair)

Michael Buchholz (International Psychoanalytic University, Berlin)

Grazina Gudaite (Vilnius University, Lithuania)

Denise Ramos (University Sao Paolo, Brazil)

Christian Roesler (University of Basel)

12.30 – 14.00 Lunch break
14.00 – 15.00 Closing discussion
15.00 – 15.30 Conclusion and closing remarks

 

Download Flyer IAAP Conference