Back to the past....riffing on THE PRESERVED

[Mark Kohut]

Yea, good stuff you write....

He [Jung] was famous for making a case for both the
> feminine and Satan being included in any concept of God, for
> example. And, yes, God, for Jung, is outside consciousness,
> and therefor unconscious. And "the unconscious" is the
> "objective psyche" according to Jung, and contains all that
> the conscious (subjective) mind defines as good and evil.

Perhaps, I was too loosely thinking of 'the unconscious' as all the repression in the psyche....

in CofL49, perhaps TRP WAS more Jungian, Eliot-influenced as the Tristero
carried lotsa dark [Satanic[ meaning..........

Perhaps N.O. Brown's extrapolation of pschoanalytic truths is the one psychoanalytic 'system' that posits the unconscious as almost entirely good......???

We have learned that N.O.Brown shaped a lot of TRPs thinking in GR, so my riffing on 'the unconscious' from the cargo on the IV should have been Brownian not Jungian, nor Freudian....Yes?

--- On Sun, 1/24/10, Keith <keithsz at mac.com> wrote:

> From: Keith <keithsz at mac.com>
> Subject: Re: Back to the past....riffing on THE PRESERVED
> To: "pynchon -l" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Date: Sunday, January 24, 2010, 11:17 PM
> The unconscious is good? Whether
> there is any reality to something called "the unconscious"
> or not, I don't know of any conceptual system that defines
> "the unconscious" as good. Jung certainly did not define it
> as good. He was famous for making a case for both the
> feminine and Satan being included in any concept of God, for
> example. And, yes, God, for Jung, is outside consciousness,
> and therefor unconscious. And "the unconscious" is the
> "objective psyche" according to Jung, and contains all that
> the conscious (subjective) mind defines as good and evil.
> From a Jungian perspective there is nothing that is not
> contained in the (collective, or objective) unconscious.
> Personally, I think the concept of "the unconscious" due to
> it being defined as all that is outside awareness, becomes a
> catch-all for whatever one wants to make up about it, and is
> uroboric anyway. If it is outside awareness, how can we be
> aware of anything it contains or not. Nevertheless, it can
> be quite entertaining to play around with the Jungian
> framework, especially as fodder for fiction. As soon as
> people start literalizing it, it becomes silly, like
> anything anyone literalizes, and the subject of silly
> arguments. If there is a hell, it just might be having to
> sit for eternity in a room full of Jungians. Talk about
> meaningless jargon out the wazoo. Yecch.
> 
> 
> On Jan 24, 2010, at 7:49 PM, Mark Kohut wrote:
> 
> what I was sayin' was in answer to ian's q about whether
> the unconscious
> contained the [inherent] vice:
> 
> I want(ed) to mostly believe NO...the unconscious is a
> Good.....so the Evil in hisotry came from elsewhere.......
> 
> Then it gets sticky.......
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Sun, 1/24/10, Richard Fiero <rfiero at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Richard Fiero <rfiero at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: Back to the past....riffing on THE
> PRESERVED
> > To: "Mark Kohut" <markekohut at yahoo.com>
> > Cc: "pynchon -l" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> > Date: Sunday, January 24, 2010, 7:09 PM
> > Mark Kohut wrote:
> >>   . . .
> >> No, to the inherent vice within the unconscious
> except
> > as the
> >> unconscious got perverted sometime in history..
> >> 
> >> Which of course begs the question of how it got
> > perverted if the
> >> unconscious is universal....
> > 
> > Are we talking about the little ship of consciousness
> on
> > the sea of
> > the unconscious?
> > Perversion? Well sure, wars, UFO sightings, social
> > darwinism.
> > 
> > alice wellintown wrote:
> >> 23 January 2010, Boston,  reprinted in NY
> Times
> > Op-Ed 24 January 2010
> >>   . . .
> >> Between God and a Hard Place
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Terrible catastrophes inevitably encourage appeals
> to
> > God. We who are,
> >> at present, unfairly luckier, whether believers or
> not,
> > might reflect
> >> on the almost invariably uncharitable history of
> > theodicy, and on the
> >> reality that in this context no invocation of God
> > beyond a desperate
> >> appeal for help makes much theological sense. For
> > either God is
> >> punitive and interventionist (the Robertson view),
> or
> > as capricious as
> >> nature and so absent as to be effectively
> nonexistent
> > (the Obama
> >> view). Unfortunately, the Bible, which frequently
> uses
> > God's power
> >> over earth and seas as the sign of his majesty
> and
> > intervening power,
> >> supports the first view; and the history of
> humanity's
> > lonely
> >> suffering decisively suggests the second.
> > 
> > Gee, whatever.
> > Many of us see God as a projection of the unconscious.
> Not
> > by the
> > unconscious, but a conscious projection of the
> > un-whatever.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>