Talk:Archetypal psychology

"James Hillman, a psychologist who trained in analytical psychology and became the first Director of the Jung Institute in Zurich" appears to be a mistake. The Institute was founded by C.G.Jung in 1948. Hillman did not become director until 1959. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:1180:5250:889D:8F77:6BA1:3E6C (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Uhh
This article should be about Archetypal psychology and not just Hillmans beliefs on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.135.178 (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree that wider coverage is needed
I agree with the last comment. My main criticism of this article is that it is too exclusively focussed on one theorist, James Hillman, from the archetypal school; I was hoping this article would give wider coverage to this subject, and list other archetypal Jungians, such as Rafael Lopez-Pedraza. I think too that it is important that this article makes it clear how this school differs from both the developmental and classical school of Jungian psychology. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Class Assignment
Hi,I will be editing this article as part of my senior psychology lab course. Please let me know if there are any specific changes you would like me to make. You can view my progress in my sandbox. Mlsteele92 (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

These are the editions that I made to this article: First of all I made influences a section rather than a sub-section and I added Carl Young, Henry Corbin and Edward Casey as influences (new sub-sections) and information for each to the article. I also put every section that was attributed to James Hillman as a sub-section under his section in order to organize the information more efficiently. Finally, I added the sections of Psychopathology and Therapy to the article with information under each. Mlsteele92 (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification needed
Thank you for your contributions Mlsteele92! Could you (if you are still around) or anybody else explain the sentence "Corbin [...] offers an ontological mode of location of archetypes of the psyche."? The article ontology doesn't really help here. With friendly regards,  Lova Falk     talk   07:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Archetypal psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070218003526/http://www.jungianstudies.org/ to http://www.jungianstudies.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It's just phenomenal?
Quoting: "What differentiates Jungian psychology from archetypal psychology is that Jung believed archetypes are cultural, anthropological, and transcend the empirical world of time and place, and are not phenomenal. On the contrary, Archetypal psychology views archetypes to always be phenomenal."

"Phenomenal" is one of those multi-definition, thus vague words. This usage needs to be clarified and given context, perhaps with examples. Same with "transcend the empirical world of time and place," ...And transcend into what? Also, it somehow feels like deep-dish jargon. (Less politely: All bow to the learned meaningless gibberish.) I like that the second sentence seems to be attempting this as a contrasting example. But needs more.

Quoting Wikipedia_talk:Explain_jargon "...use of jargon excludes people who don't yet know it, because it makes quite simple discussions impossible to understand. It tends to create an artificial division between those who use the jargon because they're familiar with it, and those who tend to stay away from policy discussions because they seem to be written in some weird code (and they often are!)"

...what's worse is sounds-alike jargon which seems like normal terminology to the uninitiated. In our Wiki context, that's either bad writing, or deceptive. Cheers! --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford