Speaking of Carl Jung

[Matthew Cissell]

Reading the primary texts helps you form an opinion, but does that make it an informed opinion? I happily avail myself of secondary sources (that doesn't mean I agree with it all). 
How much do you need to read to form an opinion? How much MeinKampf before ya get the idea? Dave has asked an honest question so I'll give an honest answer: I have not read the complete collected works. (I suppose that makes me an intellectual fraud.) Did you really have to read all that before you concluded that you "have no use for Freud or Jung"? Given this statement of yours, what makes ch. 9, 12, 13,  and 14 of the Collected works "fantastic"? Is it the argumentation or the prose or what? I'm sincerely curious.
I think it is important to be aware of Freud and Jung's roles in contemporary intellectual history, that doesn't mean I have to read the RED BOOK to have a legitimate opinion regarding the men and their legacy.
This all seems to have started due to my citing Richard Wolin's "The Seduction of Unreason". I don't agree with all he claims but it is worthwhile reading if you are interested in intellectual history. I wonder if anyone on the last has read it?
mc otis

________________________________
 From: Jed Kelestron <jedkelestron at gmail.com>
To: Matthew Cissell <macissell at yahoo.es> 
Cc: "pynchon-l at waste.org" <pynchon-l at waste.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: Speaking of Carl Jung
 

You need to read the source directly to have an informed opinion of the body of work. That's all. I have no use for Freud or Jung but I've read them both extensively while not reading much by others about them. 




On Mar 28, 2012, at 6:12 AM, Matthew Cissell <macissell at yahoo.es> wrote:


How much do I need to read before I see his genius? Maybe the Red Book will straighten things out for me. Or maybe he'll just seem more whacked out. You got that big red book? 
>    Nothing personal, I don't hold much stock in Freud either. 
> 
>MC Otis
> 
>    
>  
>
>From: Jed Kelestron <jedkelestron at gmail.com>
>To: Matthew Cissell <macissell at yahoo.es> 
>Cc: "pynchon-l at waste.org" <pynchon-l at waste.org> 
>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 7:44 AM
>Subject: Re: Speaking of Carl Jung
>
>I'll bet you haven't read much if any of Jung's collected works.
>
>On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Matthew Cissell <macissell at yahoo.es> wrote:
>I guess I don't see what Jung did "right" so I can't
>> merit praise by assimilating his work.
>>
>> mc otis
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120329/b4aa8a41/attachment.html>