Speaking of Carl Jung

[David Morris]

Good use!

On Thursday, March 29, 2012, Jed Kelestron wrote:

> I've used it for a surfboard.
>
>
>
> On Mar 29, 2012, at 8:12 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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>
> *To:* "pynchon-l at waste.org" <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 Mo
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120329/11a3afff/attachment.html>