Whither and MECándle
interviews
This is a series of one minute interviews on the problem of decision-making in relation to artificial intelligence and in particular to the problems of language models, agents and hallucinations.
INTERVIEW 01
THE MAIN CONSTRAINT IN
DECISION-MAKING RESEARCH
30-07-2024
Whither:
Mecándle, you need no introduction. Thank you for your time today. This is my first in an ongoing series of brief interviews with you on the problem of decision-making. The question I would like to put to you today is, what do you think is the main constraint for scientists in their quest to understand human decision-making?
Mecándle:
The lack of research focus on the decision-making processes of individuals.
Whither:
What about Herbert Simon’s work on decision-making?
Mecándle:
Simon did his main research within organizations. When investigators combine the term “decision-making” with the term “organization” or “group”, there is often an underlying assumption that all people approach problems and make decisions in the same way. Simon assumes that the way in which we all make decisions is the same.
Whither:
Are you saying that decision-making research in group context is a waste of time?
Mecándle:
I am only saying that this type of investigation is based on the premise that all people make decisions in very much the same way. If scientists want to test the said premise, they need first to gain insight in the decision-making processes of very many individuals.
Whither:
There are many who believe that there is more than one approach to problems.
Mecándle:
Belief is one thing, persuading an individual with a scientific mindset is quite a different matter. The scientific mindset requires an empirical method of investigation and wants to weigh up the raw hard facts. In my view, absolutely nobody has yet demonstrated empirically that there is more than just one way of decision-making, except for Carl Jung. However, his work on decision-making is so far advanced that very few have as yet come to terms with it and even fewer are able to apply it as the critical construct that it is.
Whither:
Why is that?
Mecándle:
People simply take a term at face value and off they go. They overlook empirical facts and dive superficially into Jung’s views and modify them before grasping them. His scientific work has been turned into an esoteric carnival.
Whither:
Any final comments?
Mecándle:
The SpaceX Starship project is aiming for Mars in the next decade while we humans know next to nothing about ourselves and how our minds work. To me that seems ironic.
INTERVIEW 02
SO MANY CONTRADICTORY INTERPRETATIONS OF JUNG’S WORK
28-08-2024
Whither:
Mecándle, this is our second conversation about the problem of decision-making. I have been pondering for a long time on why there are so many contradictory interpretations of Carl Jung’s writings. Do the many interpretations express anything about Jung’s personal approach to problems and his way of decision-making?
Mecándle:
The manifold interpretations of Jung’s work confirm a psychological fact that Jung discovered. He demonstrates that our personal psychology and decision-making mindset influence our ability to fully grasp and present the views of others accurately. As a rule, people are simply incapable of fully grasping and appreciating any standpoint other than their own. This lack of understanding allows for individuals to blend their views with someone else’s viewpoint, and in doing so, they modify the said standpoint, in this case that of Jung. In such instances it is often more a matter of them speaking than Jung speaking.
Whither:
But how do you stop the stream of misrepresentations?
Mecándle:
You can’t. It is inevitable. Individuals who misunderstand and misrepresent Jung or anybody else for that matter, are unconscious thereof. They believe themselves and have good intentions. That is the irony.
Whither:
But there must be some way to better the situation.
Mecándle:
Only time can. The human psyche is structured to discover itself, piece by piece, in a sequence determined by its inherent structure. It is much like archeological excavations where you work from the top downwards. When enough people grasp the significance of a new piece of their own psychology things may get interesting.
Whither:
And what piece of psychological understanding may be excavated next?
Mecándle:
You can never tell. But one thing is sure, the inventory of the most basic psychic phenomena is still incomplete. For instance, science in general has empirically little to offer on the problem of human decision-making. Do all humans approach problems and make decisions in a similar way? If not, what are the differences? What are the implications of this huge gap in psychological knowledge for the development of AI systems and in particular for Language Models?
Whither:
You leave us with difficult questions to be contemplated. Could it be that we are overlooking facts that are right in front of us? How do we proceed from here?
Whither:
Mecándle, in today’s brief conversation I would like to gain some clarity on the question as to whether psychology is a science? The great American philosopher and psychologist William James viewed psychology in 1893 as not being a science but only as the hope of a science. What do you make of this?
Mecándle:
James simply stated a truth about the scientific status of psychology in his time. He thereby acknowledged that he himself was unsuccessful in developing a scientific approach for the investigation of the psyche’s complex phenomena. James was the first to have foreseen the Galileo and the Lavoisier of psychology, the famous men of psychology that surely would come after him. Unfortunately, he died before Carl Jung founded his Analytical Psychology.
Whither:
What would you say is the core requirement for psychology to be scientific?
Mecándle:
The scientific requirement for a scientific psychology is a scientific method. Jung says that if we do not acknowledge the scientific character of the method, we cannot acknowledge the scientific character of its results.
Whither:
Is Carl Jung’s Analytical Psychology scientific?
Mecándle:
Yes. He was the first and still is the only psychologist who succeeded in developing a unique scientific approach to investigate even extremely complex psychic phenomena.
Whither:
What makes Jung’s scientific method unique?
Mecándle:
It is a purely psychological approach aimed at discovering facts that conform to law.
Whither:
Can you give us a reference where to find Jung’s scientific method?
Mecándle:
I can do better. I can give you a link to an article on Jung’s empirical method, downloadable in pdf format.
Whither:
Thank you Mecándle.
INTERVIEW 03
IS PSYCHOLOGY A SCIENCE?
18-09-2024
INTERVIEW 04
ONE ADVANTAGE OF
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
09-10-2024
Whither:
Mecándle, in today’s one minute conversation I would like to hear your view on the advantages of artificial intelligence.
Mecándle:
I am not going to repeat the current list of advantages of AI. I would rather point out the one benefit of AI that seems to be overlooked.
Whither:
And what is that?
Mecándle:
Well, one of the main goals of AI is to develop machines that “simulate” human decision-making. While a great deal of research has been done that tackles the problem of decision-making from the biological side, for instance, looking at neural networks in the brain, no research has been done from a purely psychological perspective. Those who are involved in the development of Language Models and struggle with the complexities of human decision-making will eventually be compelled to take note of Carl Jung’s purely psychological approach to the psyche and in particular to his scientific discoveries and model of individual decision-making. Eventually, developers of AI will have no choice but to bend down to the modest empirical work of Jung. AI compels humans to turn to their own conscious psyches and learn more about themselves. AI can help humans to become more conscious. I view this aspect as the greatest benefit of AI.
Whither:
Can you repeat this in concrete terms?
Mecándle:
We rely heavily on machinery to figure out human decision-making whilst a human being has already discovered the very complex structural elements related to decision-making and revealed their heterogeneous nature.
Whither:
And you are demonstrating Jung’s breakthrough work on the Analytical Typology web. No need to say more!
INTERVIEW 05
DEFINING MACHINE “INTELLIGENCE”
01-11-2024
Whither:
Mecándle, what is your view on the term “intelligence” as applied to AI and is this term definable?
Mecándle:
The individual who is credited for having coined the term Artificial Intelligence in 1956 is John McCarthy. His idea was to program and use computers to behave intelligently, in his words, towards human level AI. To behave intelligently means to simulate human level intelligence. McCarthy set no limits to human level intelligence. It follows that his intent was the programming and use of computers to simulate the complete inventory of psychic phenomena, including the way humans approach problems and make decisions. John McCarthy not only coined the term AI, he also set the objective for AI as a human level intelligence. I see no reason why this goal, with its implicit definition, should be changed or modified.
Whither:
What is the meaning of the term intelligence?
Mecándle:
Carl Jung points out that intelligence, like stupidity, is not a function but a modality. Intelligence simply tells us how a psychological function is working. Jung says that almost any kind of behaviour can be called intelligent if it works smoothly, quickly, effectively and to a purpose.
Whither:
And do you think it’s possible to develop machines that can approach problems and make decisions in the way humans do? Do you agree with John McCarthy?
Mecándle:
It is irrelevant whether I agree or disagree on this specific issue. The important thing about the McCarthy gold standard is that it gives us a reference point in time and also a standard by which to make comparisons between psychic facts and machine simulations and to measure success. Moreover, it necessitates the involvement of scientific psychology. For example, AI can be used to identify the highly complex human decision-making mind-sets or formations, if applied intelligently.
Whither:
Very interesting…!
INTERVIEW 06
THE PERSONALITY TYPES “HALLUCINATION”
10-12-2024
Whither:
Mecándle, I have often heard you referring to the personality types “hallucination.” Will you please comment on this?
Mecándle:
The personality types “movement” assumes an absolute correlation between Carl Jung’s work on decision-making mind-sets as set out in his book Psychological Types and their view of the term “personality.” The movement confuses and mixes up Jung’s decision-making mind-sets with their own view of “personality”, whatever it is. This explains their use of the non-scientific term “personality type” or “personality types.” Jung does not once use the term “personality types” in any of his works.
Whither:
Why do you view the term “personality types” as non-scientific?
Mecándle:
The assumption that personality is typical is not supported by any research. Not a single study has been done to demonstrate this assumption. Nobody has ever laid claim to having discovered types of personality. This term has no empirical reference and is meaningless. In fact, common-sense discredits the assumption of personality types.
Whither:
Is there a simple way for me to grasp the difference between Carl Jung’s type theory and the popular belief in personality types?
Mecándle:
Jung has demonstrated only decision-making processes to be typical. In contrast, the personality types “movement” erroneously assume that all psychic processes are typical and can be assigned to certain classes.
Whither:
What is Jung’s view on the term “personality?”
Mecándle:
In short, personality is atypical and thus unique. Each and every individual is an exception to the rule. Even when we break down decision-making by a sharper characterization of certain typical differences, for example “thinking” versus “intuition”, the typical in thinking and the typical in intuition are restricted to a mere indication of the dominance of these functions. It is only when we delve deeper and wider into the full array of personalised mental products represented by a specific individual with a thinking mind-set that the term personality becomes applicable and relevant. The term “personality types” is a contradiction in terms.
Whither:
Why do you refer to “personality types” as a “hallucination?”
Mecándle:
Just prompt AI on your phone and type in the phrase “who coined the psychological term personality types?” What does it say, Whither?
Whither:
“Carl Jung, a Swiss psychologist, coined the term ‘type theory’ in his 1921 book Psychological Types.”
Mecándle:
AI confuses Jung’s decision-making type theory with personality types. AI is hallucinating!
Whither:
Do you have a reference where I can read more about Jung’s view on “personality”?
Mecándle:
I do!
INTERVIEW 07
WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS?
27-01-2025
Whither:
Mecándle, many individuals from different disciplines worldwide are intrigued by the problem of consciousness. It seems to me that the problem of consciousness is the Holy Grail of science. What is consciousness in simple terms? To what do we refer when we speak of consciousness?
Mecándle:
We need to differentiate between a workable formulation of what we mean by the phenomenon of consciousness and the question of how far the different disciplines have advanced in establishing facts and developed hypotheses to further their investigation and understanding of consciousness.
Whither:
Are you saying that the different branches of science have different points of interest regarding the phenomenon of consciousness?
Mecándle:
They do have different goals. They work with different materials. They use different investigative methods and express their research findings and views in the languages of their own sciences. In addition, there are individuals in each discipline who differ considerably among themselves.
Whither:
Can you give examples of how different sciences formulate the phenomenon of consciousness?
Mecándle:
Let me begin with the basic assessment of documenting a person’s sense of reality or level of conscious orientation used by medical doctors. They ask if the patient is awake, alert and oriented to time, place and person. Typical questions are: What is your name? What day is it? Do you know where you are? There are more sophisticated assessments but this one gives you the general meaning of the term consciousness, viewed from a medical perspective.
Whither:
How does neurobiology define the phenomenon of consciousness?
Mecándle:
Neurobiology wants to know what the neural correlations of the phenomenon of consciousness are. Some neurobiologists define consciousness for instance as a brain state in which a sufficient number of key brain areas for consciousness are synchronously activated.
Whither:
What about philosophy of mind?
Mecándle:
Philosophers may for instance refer to consciousness as phenomenal experience, that is to say, basic subjective experience as well as experiences of more complex brain states. This is a workable definition. Some philosophers of mind however define consciousness as an awareness of internal and external existence. In this definition philosophers relate the term awareness to consciousness and then distinguish it from consciousness which are synonymous terms. These philosophers thus attempt to define consciousness as the unknown factor by using the same unknown factor indirectly. Simply put, they define the unknown by the unknown.
Whither:
What is Carl Jung’s view on the phenomenon of consciousness?
Mecándle:
Jung points out that for an individual to be conscious, one must be concentrated and that one is always conscious of something specific. He says consciousness is like a searchlight wandering over the field and only those points which are illuminated are conscious.
Whither:
Does Jung have a definition of consciousness?
Mecándle:
He defines consciousness as the relation of psychic contents to the ego, in so far as this relation is perceived as such by the ego. Relations to the ego that are not perceived as such are unconscious.
Whither:
Can you give me an example of a psychic content that is related to the ego but is not perceived as such by the ego?
Mecándle:
You drive your car on the open road from one town to another, in deep thought about a problem. When you get to the new town you suddenly realise that you don’t know how you got there. The road simply passed by. You have no recollection of experiencing the environment or the driving process. You were behind the wheel but the experience of driving was not perceived by you as such. You were thus unconscious of these factors. In contrast, you know very well what problem you were considering and trying to unravel while being on the road. You were and still are conscious of those mental processes and their products because they were the content on which you were focussed and thus perceived by the ego as such.
Whither:
Thank you Mecándle.
INTERVIEW 08
PSYCHOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING
03-03-2025
Whither:
Mecándle, what is psychological understanding according to Carl Jung?
Mecándle:
Psychological understanding points to the underlying psychic factors at play in human experiences. Psychic factors are the relevant psychic facts, processes and principles involved in the dynamics of different human experiences.
Whither:
What human experiences are we talking about?
Mecándle:
Jung includes all human experiences, for example those in the field of philosophy, theology, economy, politics, history, computer science, medicine and linguistics. All sciences that are in any way concerned with human beings stand in need of psychological understanding.
Whither:
What you are saying may sound to some individuals to be bold statements.
Mecándle:
Every science is a function of the psyche. Jung points out that mathematical thinking is also a psychic function, thanks to which matter can be organized in such a way as to break apart the mighty forces that bind the atoms together. He calls the psyche the mother of all our attempts to understand Nature. It is the task of psychology to study this mother. The psyche is immediate reality. When we talk about human experiences we are talking in the first place about psychic experiences. The domain of psychology encompasses all phenomena of the psyche.
Whither:
Has psychological understanding anything to say about the conflict between the United States and Russia as projected on Ukraine?
Mecándle:
In a published interview in 1931 Jung says that it is quite impossible to think that these two diverse natures of America and Russia could or would merge: they would fight out their differences to the death. He points out that Europe stands between Russia and America.
In an article published as early as 1927 Jung writes that what does move more clearly into the foreground is Europe’s position midway between the Asiatic East and the American West. Europe now stands between two colossi, both uncouth in their form but implacably opposed. When Jung edited the script of the said 1931 interview for publishing purposes in 1959 he made a footnote, saying that the “East” has changed and has largely assumed the form of the “Russian Empire” but without losing its Asiatic character. Much took place after Jung’s death in 1961, but no one can brush aside the accuracy of his predictions. Ukraine has become an extension and graveyard for the conflict between America and Russia which began as early as 1945 after World War II and has later developed into what we see today, the extreme divide between West and East. In 2006 the new independent Russia initiated the creation of BRICS, an adaptive economic approach by the “East” to cope with Western economic thought. Carl Jung’s psychological understanding of the psychic factors and opposing forces between Eastern and Western nations is chilling.
Whither:
From a Jungian perspective, how do you differentiate between a speculative viewpoint on human experience and one that is based on psychological understanding?
Mecándle:
A speculative viewpoint always lacks a solid basis of generally valid psychic principles, which is the prerequisite for real understanding. This is the reason why such views are called speculative. They lack a conceptual line of thought. Speculation states. Understanding concludes.
Whither:
I want to come back to Carl Jung’s profound psychological understanding of the relations between Russia and America, East and West and Europe’s midway position in the broader picture. What can we take from it?
Mecándle:
What strikes me is how early on Jung made these crucial observations. He recognised changes in the relations and dynamics between these nations already in the very outset. It demonstrates empirical psychology’s ability to make observations and predictions based on generally valid principles, a requirement for any science. No science today concerned with human beings can do without Carl Jung’s Analytical Psychology.
Whither:
Thank you.
INTERVIEW 09
THE MODERN HUMAN
23-04-2025
Whither:
Mecándle, how does Carl Jung use the term “modern” in his psychology?
Mecándle:
Very precisely. For Jung the meaning of the term “modern” depends on the said conceptual relation. He differentiates for example the characteristics of modern man, modern woman, modern science, modern philosophy, modern theology, modern psychiatry and modern psychology.
Whither:
Let’s put the term “modern” aside for the moment. What exactly does Jung mean when he speaks of “man” or “woman?”
Mecándle:
He refers to the psychic world of individual human beings in general, to their state of consciousness, and psychological mode of life. All this belongs to the subject-matter of psychology. Jung’s point of view is purely psychological. It differs for instance from that of the biological anthropologist who is concerned, among others, with the evolution of human beings from a purely biological perspective.
Whither:
Can we speak of the evolution of the psyche?
Mecándle:
Rightly so. Just as the human body connects us with the mammals and displays numerous vestiges of earlier evolutionary stages going back even to the reptilian age, so the human psyche is a product of evolution. When we were still animal in the biological sense of the word, we had a pre-human psyche that functioned wholly instinctively and autonomously, thus unconsciously. Viewed from a purely psychological perspective, Homo sapiens is defined by having a relative say in matters by becoming gradually conscious over the span of evolutionary time.
Whither:
What defines the psychological “man” or “woman” as being modern?
Mecándle:
“Modern human” relates to the optimization of individual consciousness. A modern human is one who has passed from an “unproblematic” state of consciousness to a problematical one. The minimum requirement for being a modern human is the sufficient development of one’s principal decision-making function in relation to one’s own unique individuality.
The question one should ask oneself is: Do I apply my mind more in accordance with the formulas devised by others or do I use it in accordance with my own psychological peculiarity? Uniqueness, singularity and peculiarity are the keywords that define the modern human. The modern human is the person of the immediate present and conscious to a superlative degree. Modern man and modern women are oriented to modern problems, that is to say, problems which have just arisen and whose answers still lie in the future. They want to know―to experience―for themselves. The modern individual is “unhistorical” and “sinful” in the Promethean sense of the word―one who is stealing fire from the gods. Such an individual is different and therefore questionable and suspect.
Whither:
How does Jung define humans who are not psychologically “modern?”
Mecándle:
Their psychological state is “unproblematical.” They are the middle-of-the-road people. They judge others mainly by emotions and show that their chief, and perhaps only, criterion is emotion. They are content with belief, philosophical suppositions, and speculation. They have nothing constructive to offer others, except, condemnation and pointing fingers.
Whither:
Thank you Mecándle. I must say, Analytical Psychology is quite confrontational. The question for me is: Who am I, the one or the other?
INTERVIEW 10
GROK & MATHEMATICAL LOGIC
29-07-2025
Whither:
Mecándle, did Carl Jung discover any psychic phenomena that the developers of Artificial Superintelligence should know about and can’t do without?
Mecándle:
Most certainly. However, it is not so easy to present Jungian concepts in a language that is accessible to developers of Artificial Superintelligence. Analytical psychology and computer science will have to locate an area of similarity or correspondence as a starting point for such dialogue.
Whither:
Have you something in mind, an area of correspondence that can serve as a springboard for dialogue?
Mecándle:
One of the problems that ASI developers are facing is the problem of decision-making. Take the chatbot Grok for instance. Grok focuses mainly on physics, mathematics and science. Elon Musk’s goal is to enable Grok to approach problems and make decisions in a mathematical way. To personify, we can say that Grok is attempting to orient itself to “mathematical logic.”
Whither:
What psychological aspect would you like to point out to the developers of Grok?
Mecándle:
Musk’s individual approach to problems and his way of decision-making come to mind and is foregrounded and consistent in his approach. When Musk is interested and focused on a problem he uses mainly what Jung calls the psychological function of thinking. Musk’s name appears therefore on our list of thinkers. Musk has a thinking orientation to problems. Thinking is also the decision-making function that enables science in general. If Musk should read the full content under the header Setting a Point of Reference on our homepage he would not only get a psychological perspective on the thinking function but may realize the complexity of thinking as indicated by the four nuances of thinking. Also, thinking gets more complicated when we relate it for instance to areas of personal interest. Musk has for example the same basic thinking approach to problems and way of decision-making as Daniel Dennett and Vladimir Putin. However, Musk is an engineer, Dennett was a philosopher and Putin is a politician and former intelligence officer. Despite their different interests and personalities there is an empirically identifiable typicalness in their approach to problems and way of decision-making.
Expressed in the language of analytical psychology, Musk is projecting his decision-making thinking-function on Grok in his attempt to create a chatbot capable of adapting to mathematical logic. However, thinking is but one way of decision-making. Put more precisely, only a certain group of people make decisions by using the psychological function of thinking.
We have demonstrated empirically under the header, Analysing Christopher Hitchens, the existence of a second decision-making function besides thinking, namely, intuition. Musk is thus creating a Muskian Grok while many Grokians are intuitives. They have a different approach to problems and way of decision-making.
Whither:
Can you name a few intuitives who are associated with ASI?
Mecándle:
The names of Erick Schmidt, Jonathan Ross and Mustafa Suleyman are included in The Hitchens’ list on this website and serve as examples of individuals who have a typical intuitive approach to problems and way of decision-making.
Whither:
Thank you Mecándle.
Mecándle:
The world of Artificial Superintelligence has much to benefit from Carl Jung’s empirical work, 150 years on.
INTERVIEW 11
THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE U.S. AND RUSSIA
30-10-2025
Whither:
I am deeply concerned about the conflict between America, with its allies, and Russia. In one of our earlier interviews you mentioned a published interview of 1931 in which Carl Jung speaks of the two diverse natures of America and Russia. Jung also judged Europe’s position then as being midway between Russia and America. Does Jung’s Analytical Psychology offer us any perspectives on the tension between America and Russia as it manifests in the Ukrainian war?
Mecándle:
Before attempting to respond to your question, can you tell me who gave the following description of the war, and when and where it was made public? If I remember correctly it goes like this: “The psychological concomitants of the present war are above all the incredible brutalization of public opinion, the mutual slanderings, the unprecedented fury of destruction, the monstrous flood of lies, and man’s incapacity to call a halt to the bloody demon.”
Whither:
That is spot on. Unfortunately, I cannot tell you who spoke these words but it has to be an individual who is well informed about the root causes of the war in Ukraine and in other regions of the world.
Mecándle:
These are the words Carl Jung wrote in 1917 concerning the lack of consciousness about the psychological root causes of the First World War. Jung also said in his last lectures in 1958 that humankind is psychologically in many respects still exceedingly infantile. You have only to read the newspapers, and study what is going on in politics. It is so unimaginably infantile, writes Jung, it is horrifying.
Whither:
What would you say, in short, are the current psychological root causes for the Ukrainian war?
Mecándle:
They are the same as those of the First World War. I cannot put it any better than Jung himself. He says that the First World War “has pitilessly revealed to civilized man that he is still a barbarian, and has at the same time shown what an iron scourge lies in store for him if ever again he should be tempted to make his neighbour responsible for his own evil qualities.”
Whither:
The Unites States and its allies in Europe and elsewhere attempt like never before to isolate Russia forever, politically and economically. How serious is the current state of affairs?
Mecándle:
Again, I am going to quote Jung in response to your question. In an interview in 1957 Jung emphasised that … “The world hangs on a thin thread, and that is the psyche of man. Nowadays we are not threatened by elementary catastrophes. There is no such thing in nature as the Hydrogen-bomb; that is all man's doing. We are the great danger. The psyche is the great danger. What if something goes wrong with the psyche? You see, and so it is demonstrated to us in our days what the power of the psyche is of man, how important it is to know something about it.”
I want to actualize Jung’s remark about the Hydrogen-bomb by saying that there is no such thing in nature as the Tomahawk, Storm Shadow, Taurus, Aster, Oreshnik and Burevestnik, they are all products created by the human mind. This clearly demonstrates to us what the power of our psyche is and how important it is for us to know something about it. Humanity is trapped again in the same psychic patterns as those that drove World War I and World War II. I am afraid that we are imprisoned by our general lack of psychological consciousness and doomed for the iron scourge that lies in store for us, as Jung puts it.
Whither:
As an individual, what can I do? Where do I begin?
Mecándle:
We must understand the necessity for self-reflection in our present catastrophic epoch. In reflecting upon ourselves we are bound to strike upon the frontiers of our own unconsciousness.
Whither:
Thank you Mecándle.
INTERVIEW 12
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL SITUATION IN THE WORLD AND THE WAR IN UKRAINE
24-11-2025
Whither:
Many people wonder what Analytical Psychology has to say about the world situation. To make it more concrete, would Carl Jung have anything to say about the war in Ukraine?
Mecándle:
It is important to realise that Jung was not a politician but a psychologist who investigated and also wrote about the observable psychological phenomena related to World War I & II. What Jung would have to say about Ukraine is not a political view but a purely psychological one. When he visited the United States in 1936 to participate in a symposium at Harvard University, he issued a press communiqué in which he stated: “I want to emphasize that I despise politics wholeheartedly: thus I am neither a Bolshevik, nor a National Socialist, nor an Anti-Semite. I am a neutral Swiss and even in my own country I am uninterested in politics, because I am convinced that 99 per cent of politics are mere symptoms and anything but a cure for social evils.” From the perspective of Analytical Psychology, there is a psychological situation in the world, borne out by a great number of phenomena which we have to call symptoms, of which the war in Ukraine is but one. The question of psychology and national problems or problems between nations is indeed topical. For instance, the political scientist professor Glenn Diesen has been asking this question for quite some time. Inasmuch as national problems or problems between nations are related to activities of the human mind they should be subject to certain psychological laws. There are certain sides to such problems that possess a definitely psychological aspect, bringing them within the scope of Analytical Psychology to produce a certain point of view at least. The war in Ukraine is one of many symptoms spread across the world, all of them pointing to the same psychological situation, namely, a disturbance in the mental or psychic atmosphere between the West and the East.
Whither:
Do you differentiate between phenomena and symptoms?
Mecándle:
Yes. You call a certain phenomenon a symptom when it is obvious that it does not function as a logical means to an end but rather stands out as a mere result of chiefly causal conditions without any obvious purposiveness.
Whither:
Can you give me an example from the war in Ukraine?
Mecándle:
A neutral Ukraine forms a natural buffer between the European West with their allies on the one hand and Russia on the other hand. However, the West contends to transform Ukraine into a western military base.
Whither:
Thank you Mecándle. We will have to continue this discussion next time. May I ask that we look into the problem of misunderstanding between the American leadership and the Russian leadership? It is as if two very different mind-sets are at work.