Speaking of Carl Jung

Thu Mar 29 16:23:00 CDT 2012

Thanks for the response Ian. But how does one "read it all"? How many books a year do you read? 1,000? And when did ya start? I think 'all' is a bit too Faustian for my ability. Maybe I have sub-P-list abilities.
I agree that prejudice is not a good companion, but I would add in any field. I think one must be discerning though, don't you?
For an update on the decline of the talking method in psychiatry look at The Fall of an Icon: Psychoanalysis and Academic Psychiatry, by Joel Paris. There is quite a bit out there on the subject. I'm no psychiatrist but my reading is diverse.
You speak of mind: where is it? I think Searle is a serious thinker & he reduces mind to brain rather convincingly. (Of course that doesn't necessarily make him or me a materialist.)
 "Reading Gleick doesn't make one a physicist, reading Fink doesn't mean you understand Lacan, and reading Wolin doesn't make you an authority on Jung." Then what does mean that we understand something? How will we know when we have reached true understanding and not the misguided variety? And of course that word, "authority", a word that Foucault or Derrida could write pages about. When does one gain this autoritas? I for one do not relish the idea of such familiarty with Jung and much less with Lacan.
My time is limited and my reading list has its gaps. Damn I need that Faust app.

----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com>
To: Matthew Cissell <macissell at yahoo.es>
Cc: 
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: Speaking of Carl Jung

The Red Book is interesting, as far as I've got in it. The art is
fabulous. It is a personal text, not a professional one.

If you are going to read secondary texts, use them as guides into the
material, not as final judgments of it. If you want to understand the
Phenomenology, read the phenomenology together with one or more
explanatory secondary sources. You can't read the Durants and say you
know all there is to know about history, nor Gibbon, nor Herodotus,
for that matter. You have to read it all. Judging the totality of
Jung's work from having read a few sources antagonistic to specific
aspects of his work is on the order of judging a novel by reading a
few bad reviews. Prejudice is not a good companion in research.

The aspects of Jung's work that commonly remain in play in
professional (psychological) circles have to do with typologies,
projection, shadow, art therapy, and dream work among others. You say
that Jung is bunk, but what do you know of contemporary psychological
practice? I know little, especially given the body work available
since Freud, Jung, Baldwin, Piaget and the rest began to formalize the
study of the ways in which the human mind works. The mind remains a
mystifying agency to serious thinkers, but if an inquiry begins with
the aim of finding a simple answer to a complex question, the inquiry
is doomed to failure.

Jed is right about the importance of Jung's work in connecting the
observable data acquired over centuries to help us understand
commonalities in the way people think. You can't just have a chat with
someone and say you understand the human mind as a result of the chat.
You have to study the broadest sample you can find, and look deeply
into the content. Secondary sources can be helpful in that, but they
are not sufficient. Reading Gleick doesn't make one a physicist,
reading Fink doesn't mean you understand Lacan, and reading Wolin
doesn't make you an authority on Jung.

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Matthew Cissell <macissell at yahoo.es> wrote:
> 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 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?
>> mcotis
>> ________________________________
>> 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.
>>>
>>> mcotis
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
"Less than any man have I  excuse for prejudice; and I feel for all
creeds the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the
trust in reason is a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments
of darkness groping for the sun. I know no more about the ultimates
than the simplest urchin in the streets." -- Will Durant