Speaking of Carl Jung

[Matthew Cissell]

I agree completely. Of course the question is how much do you interrogate a text like Hegel's "Phenomenology of the Spirit" before going on to secondary sources, and with the load of secondary material how does one choose what to read? This is where one needs the guidance provided by someone with experience and familiarity with the subject. In other words, a professor or mentor of some sort.
As a character Jung is very interesting. His writing deserves to be read. However, his ideas are hokum and the problem is that people continue to draw on them because they continue to be granted legitimacy from certain quarters.

I'd like to take a gander at the Red Book. Must be bizarre.

cheers Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
To: Matthew Cissell <macissell at yahoo.es>
Cc: "pynchon-l at waste.org" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: Speaking of Carl Jung

I haven't read ALL of the collected works, but enough to have a good
feel for his intentions and thought processes.  That said, if you're
going to rely only on secondary sources, it is essential that you read
a good amount of analysis sympathetic with the source, material meant
to be expository, not antagonistic.  That should only come after the
source is understood well.  Sorry if I'm being too obvious.

David Morris

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Matthew Cissell <macissell at yahoo.es> wrote:
> 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 Mein Kampf 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
>
>
>
>