Necrologocentrism

[Muchasmasgracias at cs.com]

keith at pfmentum.com writes:
 
 "The heavy-handed pedagogic approach that attempts to fit irrational
 phenomena into a preconceived rational pattern is anathema to me.  Indeed,
 such things [e.g., the answer to a question posed to the oracle by tossing
 coins or sorting stalks] should remain as they were when they first emerged
 to view, for only then do we know what nature does when left to herself
 undisturbed by the meddlesomeness of man. 
One ought not to go to cadavers to study life."
 
       -- G.G. Jung in foreward to Wilhelm/Baynes I Ching (p. xxix)


Not the passage I had in mind, but this one is almost the same.  In 
Synchronicity (I'm pretty sure that's what it was) Jung was a bit more 
skeptical about the I Ching than he seems in this passage you've quoted 
(who's mean in a foreword?), although obviously he was still critical of the 
necrologophiles as well in Synchronicity.


Indeed,
 such things [e.g., the answer to a question posed to the oracle by tossing
 coins or sorting stalks] should remain as they were when they first emerged
 to view, for only then do we know what nature does when left to herself
 undisturbed by the meddlesomeness of man. 

Can we know anything about nature if we leave it alone and don't interact 
with it?  And can we interact with nature without disturbing it?  Shit, looks 
like we've got death at both ends of the spectrum--Hegel would be so happy.  
Maybe life happens between the extremes, the 0's and 1's...to curl back into 
list-relevance...