Saturday, April 26, 2025

Institut de Tourisme et d'Hôtellerie du Québec (ITHQ)

Our Jung Society celebrated its 50th Anniversary on Saturday, April 26. 

A number of speakers offered their own experience vis à vis Jung and our society.

Mary Harsany is the current president and program coordinator.

Joyce Jason has been involved with the society since even before its founding in 1975 by Alice Johnston.

Jan Bauer has been practicing as a Jungian anslyst since the early 1980s.

Stephen and Shelley Snow have both taught in the Creative Arts faculty of Concordia University. 

Alain Bédard is an avid reader who participated in a joint project called "The Two Solitudes Meet" in 1996.

Mathieu Langlais is a psychologist in private practice in Montreal.

Murray Shugar is the editor of the Montreal Jung Society newsletter.

Len Richman has been a dedicated member of Montreal's Thomas More Institute and longtime fan of the works of C.G. Jung.

Roman Rogulski served on the Society's Planning committee for about a decade; he has created courses on Jung's Red Book and dreams and has always contributed mightily to ongoing projects. 

I have been involved with the Jung Society for more than half my life. So how did this weird and wondrous journey begin?

As most of my generation I read Jung’s Memories, Dreams, Reflections and Man and His Symbols in my twenties and was mesmerized by them.  However my very first exposure to the society was about ten years later at a lecture with James Hillman in the 1980s, which I saw advertized on a post somewhere at Loyola College. The lecture took place at that campus in the rather large F.C. Smith Auditorium, which was quite full. Hillman presented on “Animals in Our Dreams” and I was enchanted with his idea that when we dream of animals, we should consider them as real. In other words we shouldn’t look up about them in a book of symbols but rather learn about the actual animal and its habits maybe in an encyclopedia (this was before internet) or by visiting the animal in a zoo.. Syncronistically, some time before this lecture my stepmother gave me a book, a first edition of Archetypal Psychology, by James Hillman, which she bought at garage sale. She often went to garage sales but this is the only book she ever picked up to give to me. She had no idea who James Hillman was and at the time neither did I.

After Hillman’s animal lecture I lost touch with the Society until a few years later when I took a seminar on Freud at Lonergan College. There I met Murray Shugar who told me about the Jung Society. My next lecture was given by David Miller at Concordia.. It was all about mirrors. His theme was that even although we all can look into the same mirror basically it reflects back our own projections. Today we will hear several reflections of the same mirror, our Jung society and each one will be different based on each individual’s experience.

If you remember David Miller’s lectures you will recall his remarkable thoughtful meanderings through art, poetry, religion and psychology. Well, with that mirror lecture I was hooked on the society. Not much later somehow, I was invited to be part of the planning committee.  Soon after Jocelyn Tanner, who was the chair at the time, asked me if I would like to spend an afternoon with –guess who? James Hillman– who was visiting and being hosted by Ginette Paris up North. Apparently James Hillman had asked for a couple of French and English members of the Jung Societies to come and spend the afternoon. Ginette demonstrated perfect hospitality with us. In reality I was a neophyte, sort of a bumbling fool in terms of Hillman’s ideas and basically sat in awe of what I was just becoming aware of as the great man that he was.

      Not too long afterwards Jackie Wilson wondered if I would want to take over the duties of the program coordinator on the committee as she was finding the job to be tedious and here I am over 35 years later.. It’s been quite a ride.

In preparing for this little talk I remembered that on another occasion David Miller presented to us about anniversaries when the Society turned 21. In that lecture he cautioned that anniversaries may not always be happy or positive occasions He brought up some tribal lore about this. I guess it’s like when we have a birthday. It’s time to celebrate but there can be anambivalence about getting older and time passing. I couldn’t find my notes on David Miller’s lecture on festivities, such as birthdays and anniversaries. I even contacted him and asked if he had any and he couldn’t find them either. So I went online and found out that in some ancient pagan cultures people believed that evil spirits visited on a birthday so celebrants were surrounded by others to protect them and they made loud joyous noises and danced and sang to drive the evil spirits away. We might not dance today but there may be some music and some joyous noise.

Apparently in Judaism birthdays were considered to be lucky. A common wish is may you live to 120 years. I learnt that Amalek, a significant enemy of the Israelites, felt people celebrating birthdays brought luck so he would place the soldiers on the front lines in battle on their birthdays. Hmm ... maybe not so lucky for the soldiers.

      In any case we will bring up a little sadness along with our celebrating today when after the break in the afternoon we will remember those of us who have passed. But for now let us celebrate and enjoy each other!

We have about a dozen people who will speak for about ten minutes or less each. But before we begin I would like to present the current members of our planning committee and maybe when I mention your name, please put up your hand or stand up.

First there’s Harvey Shepherd who all of you know well. He has had several significant roles in our society including treasurer, president, and newsletter editor for many years. There’s Susan Meindl who is our treasurer who, along with Artemis Papert, who does all our tech support; they have worked together very hard recently to establish our society as an official non-profit organization.

Kathryn Archibald, Adriana Manolache, Chris MacKinnon, and Carol Knowlton-Dorrity, who is in Toronto, who are all members at large. It is Carol whose beautiful artwork graced your invitations. And finally, Murray Shugar, often our idea man (it was his idea to have this party) on our committee, and also webmaster, publicity person and newsletter editor.

There are others here who have been on our committee in the past including Valerie Broege, Margaret Piton, Roman Rogulski, Patricia Coon, Rosario Lopez, and Davud d'Andrea. Thanks to all of you for keeping our community going all these years.

  So now I will pass the mic onto Murray who will be our moderator.

 –Mary Harsany

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________  

MONTREAL JUNG SOCIETY–APR. 26, 2025

1973  I was in the graduate program - “Comparative Philosophy and Religion” at Concordia U.

One of the courses was “C.G. Jung and the parapsychology of religion,” led by John Rossner, an Anglican priest. His wife, Marilyn, a “medium” and “psychic,” came to the class but I don’t remember what she presented. She also had her own church.

Some of you may recognize the name. He and Marilyn ran the Spiritual Sciences Fellowships, offering symposiums and seminars by famous alternative thinkers.

April 1975 is the date of the actual founding of the Jung Society. It consisted of a handful of eclectic people; Alice Johnston, Steve Paull, Laurette Deschamps, Rosemarie Sullivan, Guy Chadillon, Pat Taylor, and me; (coming from a background of psychosynthesis, gestalt or Adlerian therapies). Was anyone in this audience a part of it? 

In 1975, Montreal did not have any Jungian analysts. New York Jungian analyst, Dr. Dan Young, was invited to come to Montreal.

1. Once a month to direct group therapy.

2. I, as well as others, did individual therapy with him.

3. A lecture.

4. To facilitate weekend workshop retreats in the Eastern Townships. Where did we sleep? Who did the cooking? Did anyone in this audience attend?

Once, Guy Corneau dropped in with a friend but did not participate.

1975 – Lectures and Workshops with Dr. Dan Young.

MAY 23, 1975. A LECTURE -“FATE, DESTINY + MEANING IN JUNGIAN ANALYSIS.”

MAY 24, -25, WKEND WKSHOP ON THAT THEME.

JULY 12 -13, WKEND WKSHP.

SEPT. 13-14. WKSHP. “BEING AND INDIVIDUATION.”

OCT. 17, LECTURE. “PSYCHOTHERAPY AND THE CURE OF SOULS.”

OCT. 18-19. WKEND WKSHP.

NOV. 8-9. WKEND WKSHP.

NOV. 14. “ANALYTICAL PSYCHOLOGY AND NOURISHING THE CREATIVE.”

NOV. 21. LECTURE- DR. RAYMOND PRINCE. “THE RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE AND PSYCHOLOGY.”

DEC. 7, 1975. INAUGURATION OF JUNGIAN STUDY GROUP.

JAN. 7, 1976.  AS PART OF GRAND ROUNDS, DAN YOUNG LECTURED TO STAFF AT THE DOUGLAS HOSPITAL.  “THE PROCESS OF JUNGIAN ANALYSIS.”

JAN. 16. 1976. DR. FRANZ MANOUVRIER. ‘SEXUALITE VUE PAR UN CLINICIEN.’

JAN. 1976.  ON-GOING GROUP THERAPY. W. DAN YOUNG.

JAN. 21. ROSEMARY SULLIVAN. “ENCOUNTERING THE FEMININE.”

FEB. 6. DREAM WKSHP. EDWARD C. WHITMONT. DOUGLAS STAFF.

FEB. 6, 1976.  LECTURE. “THE END OF A PATRIARCHAL ERA: A JUNGIAN CONTEMPORARY PSYCHOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVE. AT MCGILL UNIV.

FEB.7, 1976. DR. EDWARD WHITMONT. “DREAM WORKSHOP”.

FEB. 25, 1976. JEAN HOUSTON FILM. CITY WITH A SOUL.

MARCH 10, 1976. THE STORY OF C.G. JUNG.” L. VAN DER POST.

MAR.  20, 1976. DR. PHILIP T. ZABRISKIE. “WASTELAND AND SPIRITUAL REVOLUTION.”

MAR. 27, 1976. ON-GOING ANALYTICAL THERAPY GROUP.

APR. 21, 1976. AN EAST-WEST FILM PROGRAM. “FACE TO FACE. “

APR. 29TH.– 30TH.1976 WKSHOP - EDITH WALLACE, JUNGIAN ANALYST.

JUNG-“THE MOMENT THE WORK OF ART BECOMES AESTHETIC IT CEASES TO HEAL AND THE ARTIST IS CUTTING HERSELF OFF FROM HER OWN CREATIVE HEALING.”

MAY 6, 1976. THE STORY OF C.G. JUNG. CO-SPONSERED WITH

THE ASSOCIATION OF HUMANISTIC PSYCH. MTL. CHAPTER.

JUNE 15, 1976. “FOSTERING AND NOURISHING THE CREATIVE.

SEPT. 13 – 14,1976. 

WORKSHOP WITH DAN YOUNG. “BEING AND INDIVIDUATION

NOV. 26 - 28. 1976.

 SYMPOSIUM - THE I CHING PRESENTED BY THE C.G. JUNG SOCIETY AT LA MAISON DES ARTS LE SAUVEGARDE.

 JUNG YOUNG LEE, PHD., CHARLES PONCÉ, JUNE SINGER PHD JUNGIAN ANALYST AND MY I CHING PAINTINGS EXHIBITED.

SEPT. 1977- 6 - SEMINARS WITH MALCOLM SPICER. “ALCHEMY AND JUNG”

NOV. 18 – 19, 1977.

 WKSP. “SYMPOSIUM ON CHANGE. WHITMONT, FRITJOF CAPRA, KENNETH PHILIPS AND CHARLES PONCE.

NOV. 27-29, 1977. “DREAM MYTHOLOGY AND THE I CHING WITH CHARLES PONCÉ.

DEC. 3-4, 1977.

“SPIRITUAL AND PSYCHIC HEALING”; BERNARD GRAD, BERNARD GRIMAUX, PETER ROCHE DE COPPENS, FATHER STEPHEN BARHAM AND OLGA WORRAL.

FEB. 1978

3 DAYS- DREAM WORKSHOP WITH JERRY STEINBERG.  

1981. MICHAEL EDWARDS, JUNGIAN ART THERAPIST FROM ENGLAND, CAME TO MONTREAL TO TEACH AN ART THERAPY COURSE. NATURALLY, I ATTENDED. CONCORDIA SET UP THE MASTERS DIPLOMA IN ART THERAPY.

1981-

MARIAN WOODMAN, “WOMEN ARTISTS: CREATIVITY OR NEUROSIS.”

1981 -RON WAREHAM, IN OUR JUNGIAN DREAM GROUP. A LECTURE ON THE TAROT.

APR.1986. DANCE THERAPY WKSHOP WITH ERICA LORENTZ.

–Joyce Jason

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note to C.G. Jung Society on the Occasion of its 50th Birthday:

Dear C.G. Jung Society of Montreal. 

Happy 50th Birthday, wow. 

And here is a little birthday message for a very big day.

When we first met, you were 9 and I was 41. So together between the two of us, we already had 50 years. But it would take a little longer for both of us to find our full expansion and prime years. You as a group, steady, enduring, devoted to Jung and the Psyche. You made Jung and his huge contribution available in English in this northern mostly French speaking corner of North America in a place called Québec. Quite a feat. Over the years, you changed venues for your panoply of public events, from a health food store on Sherbrooke to a CGEP on de Maisonneuve W. to several classrooms in different universities. You also changed the cast of the Society, including both speakers and members of the stage crew, but the show always went on. It was always interesting, stimulating, nourishing in a world that was becoming more and more persona-oriented.

My first experience with you was in 1984, when as I mentioned before, you were 9 and I was 41 and newly arrived in Québec. The meeting where I had been invited to give a talk took place in a health food store on Sherbrooke. The store is no longer there but my memory of it is. I felt honoured to meet your amazing founder Alice Johnston and the other welcoming members of the C. G. Jung Society of Montreal.

  I had been a teacher in my former life so I was happy in that first year in Québec to have the chance to speak in public of Jungian topics, subjects I had been immersed in for several years in Zürich. It is only later that I came to realize how lucky we all were. The Jungian speakers treated with such hospitality and knowledgeable appreciation. The Jungian audience of people young and old coming together for a few hours to share in a temenos of psychic magic.

  Not many of my contemporaries and colleagues from Zürich met such richness as they made their way out of Zürich and back to where they came from. Jungian groups were beginning to sprout all over the land but you, Society, were one of the first and we the initial Quebec analysts, 3 of us, then 4, then 5, were lucky to have a collective of individuals moving along beside us, hosting so many different Jungian events as well as giving us regular opportunities to come out of the analytic laboratorium and into the public oratorium as the alchemists would say.

   I have so many memories of workshops and seminars organized by the Society where the exchange between members of the Society and the presenting analyst would be suffused with both eros and logos. Memories of my colleagues from other places coming to speak and give workshops and leaving delighted by such a fine experience, feeling appreciated and surprised that yes, Jung exists up there or, depending on where they live, over there, in that funny place called Québec. One colleague in particular is still coming, he just cannot stay away. Our friend Jim Hollis still needs his regular doses of Jung in Montreal.

To finish I want to say that the work that all of you past, present and probably future, have put into the society is remarkable. You began, you went on, you lasted. No small feat in a world of change and chaos. So Congratulations, Society C.G. Jung.

It is time to raise a glass and clink to yourselves. We are all grateful.

–Jan Bauer, Jungian analyst, 40 years later . . .!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

IN Memoriam: 

Alice Johnston

Betty Girvan

Lila Stonehewer

Cassie Cohoon

Janet Tolosa

Audrey Brunet

Sharon Wexler

Catherine Frey

Ron Wareham

Florence Perella

Jim & Kiki Tremain

Steve Sims

Malcolm Spicer

Marsha Mundy

Guy Corneau

Jackie Wilson

 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hip, Hooray and Cheers

Musical version available at: https://jungsocietyofmontreal.ca/HoorayandCheers.m4a

It’s been 50 years

Hip Hooray and Cheers

The Jung Society

Has made its mark

It’s reached young and old

Through programs bright and bold

The Jung Society

Has made its mark!

-----------------------

We even had a playwright

Who flourished in our midst

Margaret Piton gave us plays

In the Jungian Zeitgeist.

One had Jung treat Lenin

In Zurich and Moscow

Another on Jung’s Redbook –

Was comedic and high brow! (trill)

And Thanks to all the others

Who’ve given so much time

Dear Devoted Volunteers

Who never got a dime!

We’re grateful for your service

And your presence, too.

A great job you have done for us,

Keeping Jung alive and new! (trill)

[Then, ask all to stand]

(Very quietly like whispering a secret)

We have been so lucky

To live in Montreal

Where many Jungian analysts

Have called this place their home.

They all had trained in Zürich

(rctt)At quite a cost were told.

The’ve analyzed a lot of us –

But like us they’re getting old! (trill)

-------------------------------

It’s been 50 years

Hip Hooray and Cheers

The Jung Society

Has made its mark

It’s reached young and old

Through programs bright and bold

The Jung Society

Has made its mark!

------------------------

Over all these years, now,

Like the The Arabian Nights,

We’ve heard so many stories

And lectures that delight.

The Anima and Animus,

And the Shadow, too.

The Axiom of Maria,

My god, whoever knew! (trill)

Mysterium Coniunctionis

And all that Alchemy,

The Jungian path to Wholeness,

It’s there for you and me!

So, let us give a Big Hurray!

With Gratitude and Cheer,

For all the Society’s given us

Over these past Fifty Years! (special big ending)

50 Years, Hooray!!!

[Take a bow]

–Stephen and Shelley Snow

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fifty Years and Counting

by

Alain Bédard

(Between brackets are comments I made during the presentation.)

Fifty years ago, the Jung Society of Montreal and the Cercle Jung de Montréal were founded. The regretté Guy Corneau was one of the founders of the Cercle. One organization survived and one didn’t (you can guess which one). Nearly twenty years later, a significant event took place, centered on the theme of the Two Solitudes. The driving force behind the event was the Québec separation referendum where the federalist side, who advocated to remain in the federation, won by a slim margin.  

Hugh MacLennan wrote his novel Two Solitudes about the Anglos and the Francos living parallel lives without much interaction. Until that “encounter” (etymologically, “a meeting of adversaries”), the two groups embodied these parallel lives.

As one of the representatives of the Cercle, I made a presentation. I lost the content when my laptop was stolen. However, I remember three things, some in my presentation and some afterwards.

Starting with Jung’s emphasis that the psyche is made up of images (not concepts, not words). Imagine (!) how much nowadays images are prevalent and widespread in our outward and inward worlds… What are they doing to us? At what point does saturation occur?

1.     I asked then a simple question: If Unity (like the proponents of federalism claim) is such a good thing why do we not unite with the United States? The current president has picked up on the idea. Michel Cazeneuve once wrote that the concept of differentiation is a basic tenet of Jung. Separation/Differentiation/Unity. Where does it all start? Where does it all end? Why is this unity good but not that one? Ironically, Donald Trump has boosted… Canadian unity…

2.     After the presentations, a colleague of the Cercle made two remarks on location and history.

The first day meeting was held at a Unitarian church and the second, in the basement of a Catholic church. The Unitarian church doesn’t hold—as Catholics and most Protestant denominations do—that God is a Trinity. Pure Unity here. Even the genius loci voiced our differences.

Before the second day, I had a dream, of which images are still vivid in my mind. Two groups are walking and dancing one towards the other. I felt that our meeting was the rapprochement of two churches. Murray wanted me to share the dream with the group but being extremely shy, I didn’t want to.

This was the joyful gathering of two separate theologies where you can’t reconcile differences with words. At best, you ask and get respect for the differences. Many years ago, the French had the saying: “Écoute ma difference” (Listen to my difference). Note the use of the singular here.

A meeting of two churches…

Let’s not kid ourselves. It’s also a power struggle. It’s normal. And as we know, “Where the will to power is paramount, love is lacking.”…

… a meeting of two competing visions…

This colleague of mine mentioned how France had abandoned Nouvelle-France, which precipitated its fall. I knew that France hadn’t been interested in its New World settlement. [There are just so much beaver fur hats you can own.] For Voltaire, it was “a few acres of snow.” In fact, it’s 400 million acres of snow. [That’s a lot of snow.]

Nothing peculiar from that remark until he recounted how his family abandoned him at a young age. It struck me then that more than “the personal is political” (as feminists say), the personal is psychologically political. He viewed historical events through his Wound. Unfortunately, it was a black hole where the light couldn’t enter, and got distorted alongside it. Trying to see through his Wound caused him to perceive history and politics in an altered way.

In a 2007 issue of Spring (vol. 78), Robert S. Henderson “enterviewed” Lyn Cowan and Jan Bauer. Lyn Cowan:

Perhaps in former times—before we entered the Dark Ages (i.e., before Bush the Son)—there wasn’t so much obvious pathology pervading national politics and high-placed politicians. Nor did it seem very relevant to the work of analysis. Since the material of the individual psyche, even though it had an archetypal background, was assumed to be primarily formed, informed, or deformed by personal experiences in personal relationships…

2007… These days seem so remote. She went on to say:

I think the traumatizing effects of recent events on national psyche is only partly a result of the 9/11 attacks; the greater part is a result of the way the Bush administration has interpreted, exploited and used the 9/11 catastrophe to justify whatever Bush wants to do, while keeping us in a catastrophic mentality that has destroyed the political imagination.

In turn, the political is psychologically personal.

One effect of the 9/11 trauma: an anonymous aid to the Bush administration saying, “’We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”

Today, reality and truth themselves are under assault. Is it increased by, and an aftereffect of the Covid trauma? That we have never really dealt with? Or even acknowledged? Are we trying to see our world through this Wound, light and truth swirling around it? Confounded by the light?

In 2010, the IAAP held its congress in Montréal. At one time, Jan Bauer got to the mike. She said that the psyche was a deliberative body of different psychological instances where the conscious mind has a final say.

It makes me wonder now, looking at all the governments in the world, maybe this metaphor can be extended. If our minds are not “democratic,” can they support and strengthen a democratic body? Furthermore, is it in the interest of autocratic authorities to maintain and sustain our minds “undemocratic” to keep them in power?

After my presentation, I reached into my pocket and a pay stub from a play I had seen that week, dropped to the floor. I must have attended at least a dozen plays that year. I picked it up. It was for a play based on T. S. Eliot’s famous poem, The Waste Land, held in a decrepit Rialto. [I didn’t know what to do. Was it meaningful? I kept silent. I do that a lot.]

The following is an analysis of the poem’s ending:

But The Waste Land, despite all its darkness and depravity, ends with an image of possible redemption: “Shantih Shantih Shantih”—a Sanskrit assertion which, in other words, means “Peace Peace Peace.” A positive future is not an illusion draped in smoke: it’s something manifestable. We have the tools needed to avoid bringing Eliot’s fantastical visions into reality. Whether we choose to utilize those tools, however, is a different matter altogether.[i]

In 1996, Peter Scowen of Hour magazine wrote: “On the one hand, the francophone majority is fed up with the political correctness and blind devotion required to be a Parti Québécois follower, on the other hand, they are unwilling to risk the future of their language and culture by trusting an English-speaking majority that couldn’t care less whether French survives in Canada.”[ii]

Let’s settle on mutual respect first.

Goethe wrote, “Truth always acts in a fruitful way and encourages those who possess and nourish it; error, on the other hand remains lifeless and sterile, and indeed it may be thought of as a necrosis in which the part that perishes prevents the living part from healing.”[iii]

In Under the Net, Iris Murdoch has one of her characters say, “For most of us, for almost all of us, truth can be attained, if at all, only in silence. It is in silence that the human spirit touches the divine. This was something which the ancients understood. Psyche was told that if she spoke about her pregnancy her child would be a mortal; if she kept silent, it would be a god.”[iv]

Remaining silent? Finding better words? Through talk therapy? Recall Hillman’s words on these subjects, first in We Had a Hundred Years… and second, in Kinds of Power.

There is a decline in the political sense… Why? Because the sensitive, intelligent people are in therapy! They’ve been in therapy in the United States for thirty, forty years, and during that time there’s been a tremendous political decline in this country.

And,

The Chinese have said for centuries that people resort to physical violence because their words have failed. Maybe the cure for American violence begins in a talking cure, a cure that begins with attending to the potency of words.

Keeping silent… taking care of our wounds… letting the light in (with as less curvature as possible)… watching out for the shadow… searching for the right words… speaking with clarity… standing firm/standing tall (even in confusion)—if you have to. If you need a talking cure or a silencing cure… go for it.

Two years before the foundation of the Cercle and the Society, Québecois singer Robert Charlebois released his ninth album titled Solidaritude—solidarity and solitude fused, differentiated and then united.

In French, “se consacrer à” is to devote oneself to and “consacrer” to consecrate.

So you see, a society “consacrée à et qui se consacre à” depth psychology is needed now more than ever.

Respect. (FR/EN)

Shantih Shantih Shantih.

Merci. 

[i] On the Varsity.co.uk website.

[ii] Edition of December 24, 1997.

[iii] In Aldo Carotenuto’s The Vertical Labyrinth.

[iv] In Iris Murdoch Under the Net.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Good afternoon,

Being given the opportunity to speak to this audience of high-minded and erudite Jungians thinkers, practitioners and other garden-variety aficionados, from which I of course exclude all party crashers and others who are here only for the wine and debauchery (boy, are they ever going to be disappointed), I wish to start out with a highly controversial and revolutionary idea that I will phrase in this way : people are often not what they appear to be.

Yes, right, I know this might be a somewhat difficult idea to metabolize for a bunch of Jungians, but keep on drinking and you will see it takes on more and more meaning as you do.

Now this revolutionary idea has come to me on the heels of a series of strange events in the last weeks, events that were so inter-related it felt like a conspiracy. But you of all people, know that I don’t think in terms of conspiracy.

Hark! Do I not hear you begging to know what events? Let me satisfy your curiosity. But I will first say that, when I think of the few the people who make the Montreal Jung Society the success that it is through their selfless work, at least those of them I know a bit, I tend to see them as more or less ordinary people. These last weeks have taught me otherwise and I will tell you about them. Except that to do so, I have to do something I’ve never done before, that is break my professional oath to secrecy, which might get me in trouble with a lot of people, including the Ordre des psychologues. But it’s a 50th anniversary so let me throw caution to the wind and invite you to come with me through the looking glass to discover portraits that go beyond usual appearances.

       The first one starts with a phone call from a man telling me he is the White House m.d. And I’m Juliette Binoche’s secret lover, I answer. He says no no, really: call the White House switchboard and ask for me, but you must stay anonymous so use any random, unimportant name. OK I say, I’ll call myself Tom Kelly. And low and behold, he was the White House m.d. after all, and apparently the only adult left in the place. I asked what can I do for you and he said: “I’m looking for a psychotherapist for someone here I’ll name Mr. T. and I was thinking you could refer someone trustworthy in Montreal. I said: “Why in Montreal?” He answered: that way, we’re sure to avoid any gossip because nobody here gives a shit what the hell goes on in Montreal… I asked what the problem was – as if I didn’t know – and he answered: “In a nutshell, no empathy and takes his daydreams for reality”.

 Empathy and daydreams: such a combination pointed directly to Susan Meindl. But what a spot I was putting her on. If she took him on as a patient, she was facing an impossible theraputic task and more so, she would be blamed for every stupid thing he did from then on; and if she didn’t, she’d probably be offered a prolonged all expenses paid vacation to Cuba, the Guantanamo side of the island… But I had to take a bet on her as an experienced therapist, and on the possibility that she wouldn’t hold an eternal grudge towards me. So I went forward and referred her. And you know what: she’s a wise and wily one. How did she solve that incredible dilemma? She put him on a waiting list!

 Second portrait. A few days later, I meet a new female patient, a shiatsu massage practitioner. What’s the problem, I ask? She says it’s rather who’s the problem. Who then? I reply. Artemis Papert, she says. I answer that I doubt she’s a problem: Artemis is more like a solution, perhaps even a universal solution, if there is such a thing. She replies: that is exactly the problem: she is the universal solution and she’s running me out of business. She’s so good, I feel like a loser. How so, I ask?  Well she’s found all those new acupressure points that she has exclusive access to: the n.m.c. point, the n.f.c. point, and she’s apparently on the verge of locating the f.y.p.l.p.a. point, and literally has waiting lines outside her office. I ask what these points are. “Well the n.m.c. is the negative mother complex point, the n.f.c. is the negative father complex point. All she has to do is to massage these points and the complexes disappear.” (If only…). “And what about the f.y.p.l.p.a. point?” “Don’t ask, she says; if she finds it, she’ll have all the women rushing for treatment with her: it’s the find your perfect love partner archetype point.” I’ll be out of work in a matter of weeks when she does.

 So what did I do, do you wonder? I suggested that she go for treatment with Artemis, and what did Artemis do? She found the woman’s c.a.a. point and set her on her own path. What is the c.a.a. point, I hear you asking? The creative animus archetype point. The woman changed careers: she’s now a liberal candidate in a West Island riding for the coming federal elections: definitely not going to be a loser anymore.

  Next patient had made his appointment by email so I didn’t find out he wasn’t a human being before he showed up in my office. It was Smiley. Not the John Le Carré famous spy; the little round-faced emoji with a smile on his face. Which was gone when he looked up at me. Used to it by now, I asked: who’s the problem? Kathryn Archibald he answered. How can Kathryn be a problem for anyone; she’s such a nice person. That is precisely the problem, he answered. You see, I’m the archetype of warmth, positive feelings: love, happiness, and gratitude. But I’ve been unseated by Kathryn, who many people consider to be such a lovely person, they’ve determined that she, and not me, is the archetype. I’m so ashamed I might as well become the Flushed Face Shameful emoji.

 Confident that she would welcome him warmly, I suggested he meet with Kathryn, and tell her about his ordeal, and see what she could suggest. And she, according to her nature, gently told him that she might indeed be that archetype, but the phenomenal one whereas he was surely the noumenal one. At once, the smile came back to Smiley face and hasn’t left it since.

  Well now, I told myself, things have got to get better from here on. And then I remembered my favorite Jewish joke. Two old Jewish men talking about the state of the world: an optimist and a pessimist. The pessimist says: Oy, things are going so bad, they really can’t get any worse. And the optimist says: oh yes they can!

  So I braced myself for whatever else was coming. And it came in the form of a zoom call from some Jungian analyst from somewhere in the U.S.A. He said he was calling on behalf of the Inter Regional Association of Jungian Analysts, and that they wanted to consult with a psychotherapist. I said why me and he said they were looking for someone who had some knowledge of the Jungian scene in Montreal but was neither an analyst nor directly involved with the Montreal Jung Society. I said fine, but there are many others who fit this description and he replied but you’re the one we want. I was starting to feel honored and said: because I’m one of the best? He answered no, because you’re one of the cheapest. In fact you probably are the cheapest… by far…

Once more, I asked: “who’s the problem?” “Murray Shugar’s the problem, thanks for asking, he said”. “And how is he a problem, this fine man, I say?” “Well everyone thinks he’s a Jungian Analyst and too many of them say he’s their favorite one”, he answers. “I agree with them, I reply, he’s clearly my favorite Jungian analyst. But that’s in Montreal, and it’s more or less of a joke.” “No, he answers, it’s all over North America, from B C to Florida and from Newfoundland to Chiapas. And his reputation is slowly spilling over into Europe. He’s even mentioned as such in Volume 3 of Dick Russell’s biography of James Hillman.” “But that was a mistake on Russell’s part, I say.” “No it wasn’t he answers: this man radiates Jungian Analyst energy, he literally exudes it. Even adds a touch of sex appeal to it. And it’s driving us crazy. You see, we studied for years to become Jungian analysts, and worked like crazy to make a reputation, and people come to us and say: ‘Oh you’re a Jungian Analyst? You sure don’t look like Murray Shugar’. I mean this guy comes along and nonchalantly embodies it so well we look like nobodies compared to him. What are we to do?”

Well you people know by now that my preferred manner of dealing with these things is to dispatch them. So again, I suggested that he bring their complaint to Murray. Who was his usual sweet and highly seductive self, and listened attentively, mindful of finding a solution. Well he found one: he won’t voluntarily tell you, but in the next months, he’ll be touring North America, giving workshop entitled: Radiating Jungian Analyst Energy.

By then, I hoped that my trials were over but my hope was in vain. The next consultation request came from a small group of young women in their 20s, very fit each one of them and very good looking. So the inevitable question: “who’s the problem?” “Mary Harsany, they answered in one indignant voice; she’s in our aerobics class and she’s wicked”. “Oh come now, I said, that can’t be. Why would you think that”, I asked. “Because she body-shames us”, they replied, still of one voice. “Are you kidding, I said, that’s not at all what Mary would do. And look at you, young, firm and well shaped bodies, with beautiful features. Besides, Mary is such a mild-mannered person, Clark Kent looks like a hysteric compared to her.” “Mild-mannered, she is indeed, they retorted, that is until the music is turned on in the aerobics class. Then she goes wild. And we mean wild: there’s no stopping her, she can go for two or three hours at a time, as long as there’s music, whereas we’re dead after an hour. Compared to her, the Energizer Bunny looks like he’s on Fentanyl. So she doesn’t have to say anything to us; just having her in the class shames us beyond salvation. And as if that wasn’t enough, after class she goes on a power walk: 10 kilometers in an hour. We’re tired just to think about it”.

How did Mary deal with it when, once again, I packed them off to her for resolution? She suggested they elect her president of the class, and that every time they felt overwhelmed by her energy, they should call her president. She would then return – even if for a short duration – to mild-mannered Mary Harsany, no one being really fooled, but appearances being temporarily restored. Until the music…

The moral of all this is of course: never trust appearances.

–Mathieu Langlais

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fifty years in ten minutes. WOW! A Daunting Task!  

You might say that I was initiated into the Jung world when I took a summer course on Jung at Concordia University, at the Loyola campus, with a most peculiar Professor of Religion named Malcolm Spicer. This was in the early 1980’s. Forty years ago. Half a lifetime. Beside his scholarly attributes, Malcolm was perhaps also known for the doodles that he inscribed on student essays or on the chalkboard at the front of the class.

I was fascinated by his accounts of the time he had spent in Zürich with his wife Huguette where they had been analysed by two of Jung’s protégées: Marie-Louise von Franz and Barbara Hannah.

Von Franz visited Montreal at the invitation of the Spicers to deliver a talk. I heard from them years later that she had stayed in their home! I could not imagine the scene described to me of Marie-Louise telling fairy tales to their kids around the kitchen table!

It was at one of Malcolm’s classes where I picked up a flyer that drew me to my first lecture sponsored by the Montreal C. G. Jung Society at Concordia; the speaker was Guy Corneau. His subject was, if I recall correctly, Narcissus at the Movies.

If you knew Guy, you would remember the charisma he exuded.

I was awe-struck and spell-bound.

40 years later I am not so enthralled but am not yet disillusioned …

   Looking back at our historical record is a fascinating exercise. Check out a random sampling from a January 2014 newsletter. This will provide a sketch of what the Society was doing at that time. Any other moment in time would serve just as well.

In that newsletter, we read of a return visit from our friend David Miller, who would be talking about C. G. Jung’s “Warning about Faith: The Psychological Danger of Belief.”

Miller was indeed a most treasured guest in an earlier time. Among his many erudite presentations to us over three decades, dating from 1987 until 2014, were The Pathology of Festivity; Shepherding: Archetypal Images of Healers and Helpers; and the aforementioned C. G. Jung’s Warning about Faith.

Miller gave us a tremendous sense of wonder at his eloquent renderings on a vast array of subjects, even if only to a very small crowd.

 Another dear old friend, James Hollis, bedazzled our society on frequent visits since the early 1990’s. An intrepid and inspiring warrior of the soul, he has never failed to attract large crowds, no matter how many platforms he speaks from.  

In that same NL, Harvey Shepherd noted that the Society would be screening the film “Wisdom of the Dream” at the Westmount Public Library. That gorgeous building would be the setting for reading seminars our society hosted for more than a decade.

The Library has served for about a decade as the repository for our collection of hundreds of Jungian books and continues to do so.

Four-week reading seminars have continued every season to discuss selected readings related to Jungian thought. In our current seminar on Luis Moris’s book Confronting Death, via Zoom, we had more than 60 people registered for the first of four sessions.

In our interactive seminars, we have “borrowed” the format used by The Thomas More Institute of Montreal. TMI is a secular, liberal arts institution that was founded in 1945! They seem to be aging well.

 We will hear from two of its stalwarts later today.

That winter season of 2014, another reading group focused on one of the later works of Hillman, the iconic and iconoclastic founder of the archetypal psychology movement. This was Hillman’s 1999 book, The Force of Character.

Intentionally or not, perhaps we were paying homage to Hillman, who had died in 2011.

In that same year Michael Vannoy Adams came to town from New York to speak about “The Very Ideas of James Hillman: Re-Thinking Jungian Psychology.” Adams was a close friend and associate of Hillman’s. The dapper Texan always sported a most colourful tie and had a “way with words,” delivered with aplomb and a distinct southern drawl.

The archetypal gods must have been present that year. Montreal’s own Ginette Paris posed the meta question: What Is Archetypal Psychology and How Is It Practiced?

      A psychologist and professor in the Department of Communications at UQAM in Montreal, Ginette had departed for the Pacifica Graduate Institute in Santa Barbara, California where she taught and became a faculty member in 1995 before returning to her native Québec.

In that same season, another local analyst, sand-tray maestro Yvon Rivière, was asking another poignant question: Is There a Future For Psychoanalysis In Our Time?

I believe that both Ginette and Yvon are in the house with us today!

Questions like these persist. Next September we will be hosting two panels of Jungian analysts, from two distinct generations, from here and abroad, by Zoom. As Part 2 of our anniversary celebrations. Tom Kelly, Jan Bauer, and James Hollis will converse as the elders in the field; (or as Stefano Carpani has named their generation The New Ancestors!) A younger contingent will be represented by Stacey Jenkins of Toronto, David Pressault and, from Berlin, Stefano Carpani; they will speak for the next generation as we ponder such issues as How did we get here and where might the field be going beyond our time?

Since the Covid pandemic and Zoom’s reach, our roster of speakers has expanded to include some most illustrious guests: Murray Stein from Zürich; John Beebe; Donald Kalsched, Thomas Singer; Ann Ulanov; and Monika Wikman from America. Their visits sometimes draw more than 100 participants from far and wide. Author David Tacey spoke to us from Australia; Pater Otto Betler from his monastery in the Black Forest in Bavaria.

In decades past, we heard from eminent speakers like John Dourley, Polly Young-Eisendrath, James Hillman and a perennial favourite, Jan Bauer. Even Jordan Peterson addressed us before he went rogue! Meeting them face-to-face, often wining and dining them, was a privilege. In its day, Le Caveau was a delightful restaurant to charm our out-of-town guests.

Even though we prosper at the half-century mark, consider that we are mostly grey-haired folks fêting at this elegant setting. The future is unknown. We trust that this will not be our swan song!

I will close with a brief account of two salient moments in time. And a once ongoing phenomenon, now gone.

In the summer of 1990 a small group of local stalwarts travelled to Notre Dame University to attend a Festival of Archetypal Psychology. The program of offerings was extensive but what emerged over several days were two distinct “parties” who would wage a chaotic war of words and bodies: artists vs scholars; the abstract world vs the imaginal one. There were mighty disagreements. It has been noted that this was the provocative intention of James Hillman, to shake things up. David Miller would wittily dub the event an “Anarchy-typal” Psychology Festival.

Soon after, there was the moment in the mid-nineties, almost 30 years ago, when a referendum was held; a distinct “tension of the opposites” was constellated. Would we choose Canada or Québec? In a most rare joint effort, our two local Jung societies joined forces to organize gatherings to focus on our “Two Solitudes.”  

We invited Jungian analyst Robert Bosnak to help us to navigate the depths with dream work.

Today Alain Bédard will offer his reflections on that time and much more. Le Cercle C. G. Jung was founded at the same time as our English-speaking Jung Society in 1975.  It ceased to exist in the late 1990’s.

Could there be a revival?

Experiential workshops were de rigueur in earlier decades. They provided a source of creative expression, a well of psychological and spiritual nourishment.  Such were the workshops guided by Jackie Wilson and Michael Edwards at a retreat centre in rural St-Jean-d’Iberville.

During the 1980’s and beyond, Edith Wallace (1909–2004) drew a dedicated group of people on a yearly basis to her “tissue paper collage”  Playshops, named “Opening Channels to the Creative.” Edith was a Jungian analyst and an important figure in the art therapy world.

Jungian analyst Beverley Clarkson and her husband Austin conducted experiential workshops during the 1980s and ‘90s.

Erica Lorentz and Ursula Carsen also helped us to explore how the body, the emotions and a touch of the imaginal could evoke unexpected and sometimes wondrous insights.

Marion Woodman, of course, was one of our most stellar presenters with her use of story and masks, music and movement. Body/Mind/Soul intersecting indeed. This seems like a dream now.

Conversations between Guy Corneau and Jan Bauer were engaging and stimulating encounters. These two local analysts mulled over the prospects of Creativity (2011) and mused over the fateful duet, Love and Hate (2014), Guy with his emotional intelligence, sincerity and joy and Jan with her acute perspicacity and down-to-earthiness. Intimacy and friendship were constellated at these moments and moved privileged onlookers.

Reflecting on the decades of my involvement with the Montreal Jung Society, recently I took a weighty Black Book from a shelf. There were two such tomes; on their pages were compilations of the newsletters of our first two decades under the tutelage of Alice Johnston, a psychiatric social worker. The writing, mostly by Alice at the start, was thrillingly keen and remarkably wide-ranging. As the years passed, other contributors, like Lila Stonehewer, Valerie Broege and Jocelyne Tanner, added their own entries. Harvey Shepherd, a journalist by trade, graced our newsletter with his President’s Notes forever it seems. During his long-time stint, he scrutinized the local Jungian and political scene and was an astute reviewer of many books, including those of psychological giants whose ideas he brought to our readers through his thoughtful book reviews. From Wolfgang Giegerich to Murray Stein.

Harvey shepherded our society as our president from 1990 until 2003 when he came to share the honours and the labours with Mary Harsany.

Carolyn Zonailo added her own imprimatur as editor for a spell and I took up the baton about fifteen years ago, briefly aided by our local playwright Margaret Piton.

Did you see her satirical review of Jung’s Red Book staged by the irrepressible Snows, Stephen and Shelley?

The collected works of the first two decades of the C. G. Jung Society of Montreal is a wonderful reminder of how this project, this dream of one woman, was created and sustained, and has born fruit.

  Whether through the spoken or written word; whether in Person or by Zoom; formally or informally; whether through the mind or the heart or a “felt sense,” our Society has striven over five decades to foster community and dispense wisdom as best we can in many ways. We hope that this has been worthwhile.

   We hope that this event–fifty years in the making–will honour the efforts of our forebears. And celebrate our dedication and perseverance until the present moment. Perhaps in these troubling times, we might continue to serve as an oasis.

–Murray Shugar

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

TO THE MONTRÉAL JUNG SOCIETY ON ITS 50th ANNIVERSARY

Traditionally, anniversaries are a time to reflect, celebrate and look forward to what the future might bring. Milestone anniversaries are special, and major milestones such as the 50th anniversary that the C. G. Jung Society of Montréal is celebrating this year is fully deserving of the special attention it is getting. I have been a part of the organization for eighteen of those fifty years and am glad to have the opportunity to emphasize the important role the organization and the people associated with it have played not only in my life but for so many others in the immediate community and beyond. For fifty years now the society has been meeting and exceeding the role it has established for itself as set out in its mission statement, namely: “to fostering growth in psychological awareness according to the ideas of Dr. Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961), founder of depth psychology ... Through a newsletter, lectures, workshops, seminars and other activities, we offer opportunities to explore Jungian ideas, the psyche and the soul.”

Ultimately, this ‘fostering of growth in psychological awareness’ contributes in no small measure to peoples’ conscious pursuit of one of the central pillars of Jungian psychology, the lifelong individuation process. ‘Getting to really know oneself’ requires a great deal of inner work, much of which takes place in solitude. Jungians place a very high value on solitude, as Jung himself stated:

“The highest and most decisive experience of all . . . is to be alone with . . . [one’s] own self, or whatever else one chooses to call the objectivity of the psyche. The patient must be alone if he is to find out what it is that supports him when he can no longer support himself. Only this experience can give him an indestructible foundation.” (Jung, CW 12, §32)

Given the importance Jung placed on solitude it is easy to overlook, ignore or downplay Jung’s apparently contradictory insistence on an individual’s need to be actively engaged in the outer world:

“One cannot individuate without being with other human beings.

One cannot individuate on top of Mt. Everest, or in a cave where one doesn’t see anyone for seventy-years; one can only individuate with or against something or somebody.

Being an individual is always a link in a chain.” (Nietzsche’s “Zarathustra”: notes of the seminar given in 1934-1939 by C. G. Jung, Page 102)

Elsewhere, Jung emphasizes just how important it is to work out our differences with others and build healthy relationships with them:

“But the conscious achievement of inner unity clings to human relationships as an indispensable condition, for without the conscious acknowledgement of and acceptance of our fellowship with those around us there can be no synthesis of personality. […]” (Jung, CW XVI, pp. 233-234)

It is clear that Jungian psychology places a great deal of importance on maintaining a balance between introverted and extraverted pursuits on one’s journey through life. In my experience, the Jung Society of Montréal exemplifies and promotes this balanced approach to Jungian depth psychology, so it comes as no surprise, perhaps, that the inspiration to create the Jung Society of Montréal coincided with a lecture on this very subject given by none other than Marie-Louise von Franz. In his introduction to the published version of this lecture, Malcolm Spicer writes:

“Within a synchronicity of time and space, upon invitation, Dr. Marie-Louise von Franz came from Zurich to Loyola Campus [in the Loyola Chapel], Montréal, to lecture [on March 19, 1975) on the process of individuation, thereby celebrating in Canada, the centenary of C. G. Jung. In a twofold fullness, I am able to thank Marie-Louise von Franz, since, besides her gracious acceptance to come to Concordia University, she also freely gave her permission to publish the lecture for the university community.” (p. 11)

“The C. G. Jung Society of Montréal was founded just after this lecture by Marie-Louise von Franz.” (frontispiece)

In this lecture entitled “Individuation and Social Contact”, Marie-Louise von Franz emphasizes the fact that the individuation process takes place within society rather than apart from it. This theme is also evident in all of the rich programs that the Jung Society of Montréal has been offering to the community.

As important as this role has been over the years, it has also provided a space where ‘similarly-minded’ individuals can meet, socialize and engage in lively exchanges on matters of mutual interest. Marie-Louise von Franz speaks of this basic human need for social contact and the various forms it can take:

“Modern experimental studies of group psychology have shown that all groups, after a time of chaotic probing, begin to concentrate around some centre. This can be either the group leader, or some idea, purpose or theme of discussion. The centre can be a simple purpose, as it mostly is in sport or in political and commercial groups, or it can be of a higher order such as the totem in primitive societies or a God-image in higher civilizations. The more archetypal such a centre is, the more a tight and lasting coherence of the group is effected [sic].” (p. 36)

Jung referred to this basic, human social need as ‘kinship libido’:

“Everyone is now a stranger among strangers. Kinship libido – which could still engender a satisfying feeling of belonging together, as for instance in the early Christian communities – has long been deprived of its object. But, being an instinct, it is not to be satisfied by any mere substitute such as a creed, party, nation, or state. It wants the human connection. […]

Individuation has two principal aspects: in the first place it is an integral and subjective process of integration, and in the second it is an equally indispensable process of objective relationship. Neither can exist without the other, although sometimes the one and sometimes the other predominates.” (Jung, CW XVI, pp. 233-234)

The deeply heartfelt reminiscences and exchanges that took place at the recent gathering on April 26th 2025 at the Institut de tourisme et d’hôtellerie du Québec in Montréal to celebrate this milestone anniversary underscores the importance and need for feelings of kinship with ‘similarly-minded’ individuals. 

None of this would be possible without the enduring dedication of a few hard-working volunteers who have been tirelessly organizing the events over the years, the professionals who deliver them and the public who, through their membership and attendance support it all. To all of you, but with a special thank you to Mary Harsany, Murray Shugar and Harvey Shepherd, I offer my deepest and most heartfelt gratitude for keeping the spirit of Jung alive here in Montréal and beyond.

–ROMAN ROGULSKI, MAY, 2025