In Which Jung prewrites AtD's epigraph

[jochen stremmel]

>>> But the literary Everybody seems to love Freud.

One reason could be that Freud knew how to write a sentence and build
a paragraph.

2012/3/14 Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>:
> On 3/14/2012 1:20 PM, Jude Bloom wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 10:44 AM, Ian Livingston wrote:
>>>
>>> But the literary Everybody seems to love Freud. Maybe that's because
>>> he was so wrong about people, maybe it's because he smoked big cigars
>>> and suffered sexual obsessions....
>>>
>>> Btw, while Freud's ideas are mostly absent from current trends in
>>> psychology, a number of the tools Jung developed remain in play,
>>> evolving as more information comes to light.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Seriously?
>>
>> Freud today:
>>
>> Conception of the mind and subconscious
>> Psychoanalysis in film, literature, music, TV, photography
>> Talking Therapy
>> The Couch
>> The Life and Death instincts
>> Defense mechanisms
>> Freudian slips (parapraxis)
>> Dreams as "royal road to the unconscious"
>> Civilization and its discontents in the 20th Century (various Holocausts)
>> Atheism movement (The Future Of An Illusion)
>>
>>
>> Bloom (no relation) said that Freud was the most important essayist since
>> Montaigne. He survives as an essayist and philosopher, although not a
>> scientist. In F's defense, they didn't have much brain science back then.
>> Interesting to note that as psychology becomes more and more 'physically'
>> based — neurochemicals, brain structures, etc. — it comes back closer to
>> Freud, who argued for a biological basis of everything mental.
>>
>> Uh, also... To say something like, F was wrong about sex because he
>> suffered from obsession, well, that's a Freudian argument right there. See?
>> Freud did or didn't do something he wasn't consciously aware of because of
>> unconscious motivations. That's a Freudian idea.
>>
>> Yes I know Freud didn't invent much of this stuff — a lot of it is in
>> Plato — but our very language and idea of the mental is Freudian now.  You
>> run across archetypes and stuff every once in a while, but I don't see 1/10
>> as much Jung in culture — or in psychology — as Freud.
>
>
>
>
> It does seem like the big names are Marx, Nietzsche and Freud, not Marx,
> Nietzsche and Jung.
>
> P
>