Speaking of Carl Jung

[Bled Welder]

Speaking of sticking with neurons but not being a materialist, do you know anything about a writer being neutral in any given scene?

What's it mean? Beyond establishing that Bogie is short, im stuck.

Please dont tell me I have to interpret anything...

-----Original Message-----

From: Matthew Cissell
Sent: 29 Mar 2012 21:35:37 GMT
To: pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: Re: Speaking of Carl Jung

I didn't provide any reasoning. But then again I don't do that either when people tell me the moon is made of cheese ( http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=moon-not-made-of-cheese-physicist-e-11-10-19 ). None of you seem dumb to me.
Have I gone and done something unorthodox like questioning the assumed importance and validity of someone's ideas? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to step on anyone's toes. Fine, you accept Jungian concepts, i'll stick to neurons. Isn't the list big enough for some doubters like me? I mean, if I say that Carlos Castaneda is bunk will I get booed?
Don't get me wrong, ideas like collective memory have provided the basis for many a good idea in fiction, but beyond that i don't the value.

mc otis




----- 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 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: Speaking of Carl Jung

Your pronouncement that Jung's ideas are hokum are empty without
elaboration.  Are we too dumb to follow your reasoning, or is your
reasoning self-evident except to the deluded?

David Morris

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Cissell <macissell at yahoo.es> wrote:
> 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.