Carl Gustav Jung was once thought too esoteric to ever become mainstream. But he has been well served by his followers and popularisers. Several women doctors were in the forefront.
Jung himself on occasion has defied his reputation for obscurity, as in the Tavistock lectures, that got his main ideas across, with some panache.
A sort of guerrilla warfare against his reputation persists however. After world war two, an English doctor expressed some irritation that Jung was still associated with anti-semitism.
His book pointed out that Jung was guest of honor next to Winston Churchill when he visited Switzerland. Churchill was in a position to know and would not have entertained a racist or Nazi sympathiser (especially right after the Holocaust revelations).
So, it is rather sad that a recent biography of Jung took his anti-semitism
as read. The allegation has become a legend. Jung is not the only innocent man
stuck with a stigma.
Churchill himself is still dogged with the condemnation that he shot the
miners.
If it were true, you can be sure that his enemies would have made it stick as a
matter of historical record.
A writer on Jung traced his stigma to Sigmund Freuds short history of psychoanalysis, where the visiting Jung is said to have put aside his anti-semitism for the occasion.
As a student, I already had been given the impression, that Jung was a disciple, who turned away from the leader who elevated him, making him a sort of Lucifer figure.
Jung was moved to point out that he was already an established psychologist before he ever met Freud. Jung distinguished his researches as "Analytic psychology" which suggests a merely derivative school of a less distinguished practitioner. In truth, Jung had already great professional experience with institutionalised mental illness, which Freud never had.
Freud lived in anti-Semitic Vienna. And Jung was a German-speaking Swiss. Freud lived and breathed Germanic anti-semitism. It might have been no big deal for him to assume that Jung was just another of the same ilk.
Freud was anxious for his school of psychoanalysis to break out of its adversely discriminated confines.
Likewise, some followers of Jesus wanted to take Christianity to the Gentiles. Jungs visit would naturally chime in with Freuds hopes.
Freud would scarcely have been human if his disappointment with Jung did not breed some token resentment.
Peter Gay, biographer of Freud, reveals that late in his life and in danger from Nazi persecution, Jung was responsible for sending emissaries. They offered to help him get away before it might be too late.
Freud is quoted as saying that he would not be beholden to his enemies.
There was something of the old Adam about Freud. He had an attitude problem
towards Jung. It is a revealing statement of an intellectual tribalism from
Freud. His doctrinal purity appears responsible for much of the schisms into
psychoanalytic sects.
The babel of psychoanalysis is just another example of, what religious people call, the fallen state of man, historicly succumbing to tribalism, instead of transcending it.
It is to Gays credit, that his thoro intellectual biography does not shrink from certain blemishes in Freuds character, which could be disdainful yet presumptuous (in his attitude to American money) for all his proud integrity.
He was not above gloating at the humble demise of his dissenting rival Alfred Adler, as tho it were divine retribution for straying from his psychoanalytic party line.
Yet when Jung admits that Freud was "a superior personality" to himself, you know intuitively what he means. There was more than the noted appearance of the Swiss peasant about Jung. There was a trace of a coarse manner. Perhaps he lacked Freuds sense of his own dignity.
The social function of stigma is to ostracise the unrepentant. But stigma becomes dysfunctional when it is attached to the blameless. Too often, blaming others is a lazy distraction from examining ones own shortcomings, which can be an arduous and uncomfortable task.
One of Jungs leading morals is not to rush to condemn. Once, he put it in conversation to a colleague, who was angry with someone: Even if they are nine-tenths wrong and you are one-tenths wrong, there is nothing you can do about the nine-tenths. But there is something you can do about the one-tenth.
This shifting blame is a great obstacle to human progress. The temptation is
always to blame others rather than to concentrate on the hard work of
self-improvement, and turn away from the inertia of ones bad habits.
This is Jesuses message of the mote and the beam.
Much of Jungs teaching is the Gospels in psychological dress. Jung came from a large family of pastors. He was the psychological exception to the religious rule.
He realised that religion had lost its numinous power over mankind. It had to be recognized that science was now mankinds mentor. Intellectual understanding had come into its own.
A Jungian term sometimes has its Christian equivalent. It is always a good exercise with Jung, that whenever he presents you with a new concept, to try to think of its religious equivalent.
Jesus rebukes hypocrisy. Whereas, Jung warns against having an
“Inflation” meaning in common parlance, getting a swelled head.
This may be likened to what the ancient Greeks called hubris, or pride before a
fall.
Like hypocrisy, it involves thinking one is better than one is. The hypocrit
gets an inflation, if he is taken in by his own act.
In the Gospels, Jesus is asked for "a sign" to prove his powers. He rebukes the doubters for their lack of faith.
Such a sign now goes by the famous Jungian term of "synchronicity" the meaningful coincidence that defies the laws of chance.
The reader may think of such uncanny happenings in their own life.
The following incident may be a personal example of synchronicity, assuming
there was no ordinary communication between two women, who responded the same
way, when I described a book about The Lost Gospel by Burton L Mack:
"Richard, dont you ever read anything but serious books?"
Burton Mack claims that a reconstruction of a lost original gospel, that
scholars call Q, shows the sayings of a cynic sage, perhaps influenced by the
near presence of Greek colonial cities. He has no truck with the notion of
Jesus as an idealistic religous reformer, let alone the uncanny.
So, that possible case of synchronicity, in connection with Macks book, is
ironic or amusing, as if saying: God is not mocked!
Because, the academic Mack seems to see Jesus thru secular spectacles. But
there are more things in heaven and earth ever dreamt of by your filosofy or
mine.
Jung is much associated with his borrowed term, the archetypes, which he made so much his own, as the numinous idols of the unconscious mind. He himself translated the archetypes as a simile for the gods.
There are other rival schools of psychology, like the behaviorists, who would deny that either Freud or Jung are scientific. One may differ from that. If anything, Freud was too great a thinker for the big prizes that merely give men over-grown school-boy reputations. He did win the Goethe prize but it was for literature not science.
Our anthropology lecturer rubbished Freuds Totem And Taboo, with its claim that the tribal patriarch was overthrown and cannibalised. Nowadays, excavators of the past say cannibalism was universal.
Only the other day (december 2010) bone evidence from a Spanish cave was given in Current Anthropology. Prehumans cannibalized one another for the "nutritional value" a million years ago.
This lecturer was not anti-Semitic. (He was Jewish, which is actually only one of the semitic races.) He had no antipathy to Freud. He once asked me what were his three most important ideas.
Like a school-boy reciter, I replied: the Unconscious, and infantile sexuality, and I forget the third point. I guess it should be the psychological meaning of bodily expressions. Yes, I remember now: “psychic determinism,” to use the jargon.
Other people had these insights, too. Peter Gays biography of Freud, a man for our times, notes a British psychologist, who sternly pointed-out, in Victorian times, that childhood has its sexual nature. (I met one of his descendants.)
It is remarkable how Freuds last work, Moses and Monotheism, has gained modern currency with the belief that Achnaton sun-worshippers led the Jews out of Egypt.
Freuds 19th-century materialism, like Marxs, lacks idealism. Marx emfasised (emphasised) the economic motive, the meal ticket. Freud emfasised sex rather than love.
Some thinkers attempted to synthesise their ideas. And I do think that Freuds theories would have benefited from putting the instinct to eat, at least on a level with the sexual instinct.
One thinks of babies having to be prevented from instinctively putting
things in their mouths, however inedible, in our highly manufactured
environment, about which instinct knows nothing.
Birds are particularly vulnerable from trying to consume human litter that
their instincts cannot discriminate against.
In human society, securing a livelihood is a primary motivation rendering hollow so much of high-minded intentions.
At one point in one of Freuds introductory lectures, he admits the desire
for love is behind sexual temptation.
Perhaps he could not be expected to appreciate the Christian message of love,
so conspicuous by its absence towards his race, or, for that matter, in the
Crusades against Islam, or in the ruthless and barbarous suppression of the
heretics of Christendom.
Freuds inspiration was not traditional religion but the materialist science of the 19th century. The church had put man at the center of the universe. Freud saw science as a progressive realisation of our insignificance in the scheme of things, however we dislike that humbling our "naive self love."
Copernicus had shown that the earth was not at the center of creation. Darwin showed that man was not the center of creation, but just another species as liable to extinction as any other in the integral struggle of life.
Freud reckoned psychoanalysis showed that mans reason is not the center of mental life. Not only was man not master of the universe, nor master of creation but not even master of his own mind. The conscious mind was no more all of the mind than the tip of the iceberg is all of the iceberg.
The over-whelming importance of this observation is apparent from a glance at the state of the world. If reason were the master, as rationalists like Bertrand Russell said, mankind could set about with a will to making the planet a haven for the whole human race and our fellow creatures in a resilient world eco-system.
Instead, mankind is full of over-mastering passions and quarrelsome factions. Planetary life could be damaged or destroyed for profit by nuclear weapons and nuclear fission power and other irresponsibly introduced technologies.
Opposition seems a fundamental quality of life. Seeing something coming, then going the other way would no doubt have considerable survival value, thru-out the whole history of evolution. But the unconscious assumption of hostile intent instinctively acted upon in every social relation is a drawback to co-operation, even deeply damaging to a childs ability to mature into a social being.
If there is indeed an instinct of opposition, it perhaps has something to do with Jungs concept of the Shadow. Instinctive opposition may explain the politics of Reaction, which is by no means always confined to those who have the most to lose.
Unconscious motivations will continue to dominate mankind until they are placed in the critical spotlight of the conscious mind to ask: Is there no better way?
After Copernicus demoted man from the center of the universe, fysics (physics) did not stop there with the humbling of mans supposed Lordship of creation. The Sun itself proved to be only an insignificant outlier to a whole Milky Way of suns. And then the Milky Way proved to be only itself one among an uncounted multitude of galaxies.
We don't really know how large the universe is, only what we can see of it. It is, in any case, so staggeringly large that nothing less than light-years can begin to measure it.
The fantastic notion, to really cap everything else, is the growing suspicion that the universe itself is perhaps but one amongst a universal array of universes, a multiverse.
If fysics persuades us of the multiverse, it will have a certain resonance with the psychology of the multitude. Because, multi-verse and multitude have in common that we cannot pass between them.
By definition both a universe and an individual are self-contained. And this is not just a matter of definition. No one can become somebody else. No one can live or die for someone else.
I am not talking about the sense in which R H Tawney said that there are people living other peoples lives. He meant, quite rightly, that gross inequalities of income allow the very rich to cram several lifetimes experience, while impoverishing the lifestyles of the poor.
Nor am I talking about those heroic folk, who have sacrificed their lives, so that others might live.
I mean that ones subjective consciousness must forever remain ones own and nobody elses. Even in company, we live and die alone.
Perhaps the key point is that we learn our own sense of self so well, that learning a sense of self that extends to others is never nearly so efficacious.
You could describe the whole life of service by Mother Teresa as an attempt to abolish the distinction between her own self and that of others in need. It is a religious attempt to transcend the life and death of the individual self.
But the individual self is reinforced by instinct and conditioning, not just one life-times self-identification but the life-time of life itself coming to a distinctive self-awareness, thru-out the history of evolution.
The multi-verse concept is so vast that it must even run to universes that approximate to our own. That implies that it must contain people more or less like ourselves. We ourselves change very considerably from childhood to old age. Tho, we remember ourselves subjectively thru-out all the fysiological (physiological) changes.
So, in an indefinite number of other universes that reproduce ourselves to some extent, we have recognizably the same subjective experience of life as in this universe.
However, is that really any different to the subjective experiences of other people in this universe, where we are just as much separated subjectively from sharing their lives?
Our self in other universes is subjectively as great a stranger to us as others in this universe. The multi-verse separates us from our subjective self, as the universe relates us objectively to the subjectivity that we share with others.
This line of thinking seems to lead to the primacy of subjective experience rather than to objective personal identity. In practice, we strenuously insist on the latter, despite conjectures of filosofical idealism. Tho, the religions of universal brotherhood insist that everyones needs must be met, because their needs are no different from our own.
Despite the authoritarian church, Christianity is a democratic teaching. And Switzerland is a remarkably participatory democracy. I believe, Jungs psychology is suffused with democracy. But his psychology is not a rational decision to make democrats of people. He is not a doctrinaire democrat. The value of his message, in this respect, is increased by being under-stated; by leading you to it rather than commanding you to it.
Sociology is founded on the insight that people are actors who can take on different roles. Jungs psychology is based on man as a microcosm, the cosmos writ small. All of society contends within him and, in effect, that requires, towards ones self-conflicts, a mature democracy, such as the human race hardly yet knows.
The notion of man, as a microcosm of the cosmos, is summed-up in alchemy in the frase (phrase): as above, so below.
The fysical embodiment of this idea may be found in the three pyramids of Giza whose relative positions match the stars of Orions belt, with the Nile representing the Milky Way.
The Nile in annual flood was associated with the rise of Sirius just before the sun at the summer solstice. Sirius is fixed like a guard dog at the bridge of the Milky Way. And is just above the constellation of Argo, the ship, on the river of stars. (According to the Crystalinks site, which says that the dog star symbolises steadfastness and the bridging of lower and higher consciousness.)
The very obscurity of what alchemists called "the work" might offer an insight into the unknown depths of the common primitive mind or collective unconscious. This was the preoccupation of Jungs later years.
Freudian depth psychology seeks to explain neurotic aberrations of conduct unconsciously expressing socially suppressed personal wishes.
Jungs psychology sees the instincts take on images of numinous power, the famous archetypes of dreams. Instincts are not only rooted in behavior, they are rooted in the imagination. Jungs contribution is to emfasise how the mind is as archaic as the body, with as many primitive evolutionary levels, as the re-evolving embryo in the womb.
Life is a product of its environment. The motion of creatures depends on being able to balance in Earths gravity. The lunar tides probably facilitated the transition of life from sea to land. And in menstruation perhaps facilitated the birth process.
Sir Charles Darwin, son of the great naturalist, reckoned that the Pacific ocean was about the volume of the moon which had once been part of the Earth.
When the astronauts brought back lunar samples of rock, it was discovered to be earthlike. It is suggested that a collision must have knocked the Pacific portion of the Earth out to become its moon.
Presumably that is why the Pacific is surrounded by the so-called ring of fire. That is the volcanic wound, so to speak, from the wrenching apart of the moon from the Earth.
It is interesting that parturition or birth seems to mimic this wrenching apart of the planet itself. The moon, that has been wrenched from the Earth, still acts as a wrenching influence on the Earth and its life-forms.
Jungs later psychology was concerned with getting glimpses into the archaic structure of the mind by studying its naïve expression, not only in dreams but in the fantastic symbolisms of Alchemical texts.
Jungs research went beyond the metafysics of occult experiments in mediaeval Europe. It stretched from alien ancient mind-sets, such as the Chinese I Ching or the lost Christian spiritualism of the Gnostics.
Jung travelled in Africa and aboriginal America to study the remnants of the tribal psyche of our ancestors. He studied the old universal way of thinking fossilised in the tradition of folk tales.
When he was an old man, Jung was visited by an interviewer, who expressed, with some surprise, that he had the appearance of a Swiss peasant.
Jung replied equably that that didn't entirely miss the point.
The interviewer soon got on to asking him about Freud. Jung took the questions in his stride. As a final point, he merely added to the effect that a certain patience in research was needed.
Without actually saying so, Jung had pin-pointed a weakness in Freuds work. His observations, however profound they might be, were parochially Viennese. His excursion into anthropology, Totem and Taboo, leans heavily on The Golden Bough.
And it was said of Sir James Frasier, that when asked if he had ever met a savage, replied: Certainly not!
Jung met his own savage in the Shadow.
Jungs psychology was concerned with the development of the personality into maturity. Common to cultures, a typical early trait or what Jung would call an archetype is the Trickster.
A prime example is the Charlie Chaplin tramp. He is like a child, powerless but with a certain charm, which may help to excuse the lafable (laughable) dodges he employs to survive.
Chaplin once had Stan Laurel as his understudy. It was said of Chaplin that he was respected but nobody liked him. Whereas Laurel could do everything he did and everybody liked him.
Chaplin later moved away from his slapstick comedies. M. Verdoux was still a trickster of sorts but a decidedly sinister one. This black comedy rather illustrates another Jungian archetype, which he called the Shadow.
The Shadow is perhaps most famously described in Robert Louis Stevenson story of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, where Hyde is the fysically and morally hideous dwarf side of the good doctor.
Again, Jung has invented a psychological term for a religious one, namely a devil.
The Shadow is an undeveloped part of the personality. It may be an archaic substratum of the mind that has not been socialised. It may be neglected potential for a more rounded personality.
The Shadow may be repugnant but it is not to be shunned. Shunning it will only make it more powerful, thru our lack of awareness of its influence on our actions. Nor must we project our Shadow on to other people, blaming our shortcomings on them.
This is only an excuse for avoiding the hard work of self-improvement. Making other people out to be worse does not make ourselves any better, it just deludes ourselves into thinking so.
The appearance of the Shadow for instance in our dreams may signal the need to negotiate with it, to produce a more balanced personality.
Treatment by depth psychology has its religious equivalent in exorcism.
It is inevitable that most of us will grow up with one-sided personalities. Our various Shadows are the weaker sides or selves that have gone to the wall (or gone to the devil). This is because competition is the way of life and we are best able to compete by leading with our strengths.
In general, everyones childish charm diminishes to be replaced by the greater capacities of adulthood. The Trickster gives way to another archetype the Hero, again common to all cultures. To leave childhood behind and fly the nest requires a certain heroism. It means going out into the world and establishing a position for oneself. Each new generation is a colonisation.
Another common feature of the Hero is that his triumph only takes place with sacrifice. Just as in ordinary life, marrying and raising a family is the sacrifice of a life of ones own. And can be said to be truly heroic. You only have to listen to the courtship songs of popular music to catch the high heroic tone.
The sexual instinct captures the imagination in the respective romantic archetypes that men and women harbor in their minds. A woman has a male archetype, the Animus. A man has a female archetype, the Anima.
These archetypes are like ideal plans wired into the brain, which serve as a guide for the desired partner. Because this is an instinctive process, a man may unwittingly find himself powerfully attracted to some woman. She may fit the mould in his mind, so to speak.
And conversely, the strong masculine man can be a powerful attraction to the
kind of woman who is looking for a protector.
Perhaps a symptom of this was the urge of some women to give white feathers,
signifying cowardice, to men not in uniform during World War One. It was an
instinctive reaction more than a rational one. And it resulted in a British
post-war era of three women to every man. Women took to lipstick, as an
artificial sexual signal, previously confined to prostitutes.
The man who is easily overwhelmed by attractive women is, in Jungian terms, in the grip of his Anima. Rich men, who can afford to indulge their passions, often have mistresses. Film stars are particularly liable to be overcome by the opposite sex, as their trade is to play at just such encounters. And play may soon give way to being overcome by their Anima or Animus.
I suppose one point that Jung is making is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
The Freudian concept of transference refers to this falling in love, that typically happens at some stage of a psychological patients being treated by an analyst or therapist.
That is to say the transference fenomenum (phenomenon) is like the activation of an instinct under unsuitable circumstances. It resembles that imprinting of chicks on a substitute mother but fortunately is not as irreversible!
A persons development comes to a stop if he or she can never get beyond the romantic illusion. Life has to be more than a perpetual falling in love with one person after another, that does not do justice to their real selves but just uses them as a stimulus for wonderful but temporary feelings.
Part of the problem, it has to be admitted, is the monotony of monogamy. As John Donne said, there is a need for variety in relations. At present, those who can afford it, enjoy -- if that is the word -- a serial monogamy, in other words, a staggered polygamy or one spouse after another.
Maintaining a show of monogamy, by the requirement of divorce before another partner can be taken on, is a hard-hearted compromise. But it is dictated by the competing tyrannies of covetous and jealous passions.
On my page about the four loves, love cannot stop at romance but should progress, as well, to friendship, affection, and charity.
Jungs psychology is one of balance. In terms of balance, love doesn't stop at romance between courting couples. Love is also the friendship of shared interests in the world beyond personal attraction. Love is the affection that familiarity engenders. And love is the charity of disinterested caring for the sake of others.
All this implies a far wider range of endeavor, that can only be achieved by a fully rounded personality, who is not just a romantic.
Shelley is regarded as an archetypal romantic. His doctrine and lifestyle of free love has been criticised as selfish indulgence that can destroy those abandoned for the latest fancy.
However, things were probably not quite so simple. Someone of his precocious ability might well provoke jealousy. Someone of his rare breadth of interests, as in the possibilities of science and betterment of the lot of mankind, wasn't going to have an easy time to find soul-mates, except perhaps amongst few, if any, as gifted as himself,
Shelley no doubt was a romantic not just towards women, however deficiently, but as a visionary of human progress. And since he died so young, he hardly had a chance to mature, to atone for youths amorous selfishness, as the case might be, and consolidate that amazing promise.
Jung belies his name, which is German for young. It would be truer to say that Freud is the psychologist for the problems of the young, as they are predominantly sexual problems. C G Jung is the psychologist for the old.
A typical instance of this might be his interpretation of patients dreams. He was quite capable of disregarding their obvious sexual symbolism, so obligatory to the Freudian psychoanalyst.
Rather than dwell on any hang-ups of childhood, Jung would focus on the problems at hand, the life chances of the older person, that their dream might signify.
Jung found that, by the age of forty, people were already concerned with the coming of death. Whereas youths preoccupation is with giving birth. This requires material considerations of being able to support a family. Whereas old age has a spiritual orientation towards what comes after this life.
Not just Jungs own Christian family heritage profoundly guided his psychology but religion from all over the world at all times.
Even someone as immersed a lifetime in mystical wisdom as Colin Wilson, in his biography of Jung, leaves as an open question the validity of Jungs alchemical interpretations.
Freud quite reasonably says in his essay on war and death, that the injunction, Thou shalt not kill, is a counter to a human race all too disposed to kill. And that mankind has to recognise that ancient predispositions linger on in the recesses of the mind and can and do burst out again, without due care.
Freuds negative warning, of the selfisness of the deep-seated primitive in mankind, is valuable. And so is Jungs positive affirmation of human spirituality which he believed, in Dreams and Reflections, may transcend space and time to immortality itself.
This book first published in 1954 modestly presents itself as an introduction to the psychology of dreams. And it does indeed stand on the shoulders of giants, Freud and Jung. So far so good. Then he comes up with his own biological theory of dreams. This is actually a misnomer, or at any rate, too vague term, for what turns out to be a problem-solving theory of dreams.
Christopher Evans, the computer scientist and nineteen-seventies profet of the coming micro-processor revolution, saw the brain as an extra-super-computer, in Landscapes Of The Night. I dont have fotografic memory (or computer memory!) so I cannot do his work justice. I think my feeling was the obvious criticism that it was too intellectual. I dare say it still has a lot of good things in it, if not as balanced a treatment as the earlier book by Hadfield.
Of course it is true that being able to solve problems is a biological imperative. And the things that have made the biggest impression on one, by definition, are still churning around in ones mind. It seems inevitable that dreams must be those impressions, those disturbing factors of life contending within one, even in sleep. Just so, we see dogs running in their sleep, presumably having exciting chasing dreams of some sort.
The very vagueness of that last sentence indeed marks me out as a denizen of the old-time black box psychology. That was the era when we didn't have the technology that has emerged in the last decade or two. Now physiological psychology, I mean neuro-science, can see the brain almost like an open window, if not yet an open book, picture book even. They can closely track the minds subjective experience with concurrent electro-chemical activity in the brain.
In the past, we talked of people in life-threatening situations seeing their
whole life flash before them. Now there is talk of brain scans that will be
able to upload a lifetimes memory, so that it can be downloaded and shared by
anyone as a subjective experience similar to the memory of the person who lived
it.
Then perhaps onto living other peoples lives as virtual realities.
Black box psychology must seem pretty tame and hopelessly out-dated in comparison. It will no longer be possible to make a virtue out of necessity by pursuing introspective psychology.
In the past, insight into the physical workings of the brain were largely
afforded by accidents causing brain injury resulting in, sometimes, exotic and
weirdly eccentric, behavioral loss of function, or occasionly some enhancement,
likely with drawbacks.
Deliberate probes into the skull were often so crudely invasive, that it must
have been a relief to turn to purely introspective psychology. That is turning
the mind upon itself by reflecting on our mental activity.
I believe in Hadfields book we see the full flowering of this introspective innocence in psychology, which has been lost. His masterly understanding of scientific method comes with a suppleness of thought, that seems to me completely without dogmatism, which may dog even the greatest thinkers. Hadfields mode of reasoning is my idea of a scientific mind, that is a pleasure to follow.
This is a book that will repay reading more than once, which is compliment enuf. The best book on dreams I have ever read and I have read some far-out stuff, as well as Freud and Jung. I regret that the work was too introductory for more than a brief last chapter on paranormal dreams.
Richard Lung.
2010-11.
Revised & uploaded July 2014.