Speaking of Carl Jung

Thu Mar 29 22:12:28 CDT 2012

I've not "read" the Red Book, only rolled in it's pictures.
Go there.

On Thursday, March 29, 2012, Mark Kohut wrote:

>  Back to Who might have read Wolin's The Seduction of Unreason? I have
> not. I may now, BUT I have read some Wolin and have heard him speak once.
> I think I read some of Wolin's Benjamin book and I know I read some of the
> book on Heidegger he edited, since dealing with Heidegger was important to
> me.
>
> I have read other philosophers on the conceptual emptiness of Freud
> (and/or Jung by simple extension. That is, if the Unconscious goes, then
> the Collective
> Unconscious goes..). Grunbaum was one. Frederick Crews--a literary guy
> previously cited here was another who turned on Freud(ianism)...
>
> I tell (usually to myself) one personal story. How, when I had first
> discovered such ideas as Freud's, and full of confusion and wanting to
> learn whatever "truth" was, I had read Sartre who argued against Freud's
> conception of The Unconscious. I had a narrow, repressed upbringing,I say.
> So, I was young and away from home (for the first time) at university [in
> Toronto], yet felt overtly so happy to be on my own, to be learning every
> day in a different country, full of life-and learning embracing happiness
> (it seemed).
>
> That year,the song--later to appear in Vineland---I'm So LonesomeI Could
> Cry was a pop chart hit. But I hated country music so I did not like it.
> Overtly.
> upon hearing it after some while of it being played often,one day when I
> heard it, I was semi-overcome with an immense sadness. A feeling of home
> sickness
> from the song's lyrics I came almost immediately to believe.
>
> Which convinced me that The Unconscious and some other ideas which the
> most logical philosophers and rationalists could refute with impeccable
> scientific
> reasoning, often missed something else, something perhaps true but
> not so scientifically provable with---"you're gonna want cause and effect"
> (?)----and, more literarily, "there are strangerthings in the world than
> in all of your philosophy,Horatio".......
>
> this is one reason I love Pynchon and one way I think he uses such as
> Freud and Jung........not JUST as conceits but as (some) truth carriers
> metaphorically.......
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   *From:* Matthew Cissell <macissell at yahoo.es <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'macissell at yahoo.es');>>
> *To:* "pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'pynchon-l at waste.org');>" <pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'pynchon-l at waste.org');>>
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 29, 2012 10:56 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Speaking of Carl Jung
>
> 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 <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'fqmorris at gmail.com');>>
> To: Matthew Cissell <macissell at yahoo.es <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'macissell at yahoo.es');>>
> Cc: "pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'pynchon-l at waste.org');>" <pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> '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<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '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 <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'jedkelestron at gmail.com');>>
> > To: Matthew Cissell <macissell at yahoo.es <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'macissell at yahoo.es');>>
> > Cc: "pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'pynchon-l at waste.org');>" <pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> '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<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '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 <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'jedkelestron at gmail.com');>>
> > To: Matthew Cissell <macissell at yahoo.es <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'macissell at yahoo.es');>>
> > Cc: "pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'pynchon-l at waste.org');>" <pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> '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<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '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/20120329/59065d9c/attachment.html>