Nietzsche forced us to recognise that the category of ‘Truth’ functions only by being enveloped in its expressive distortion. From this, an ode to Jung can be constructed despite his inherent flaws.
I also like this post. I thought I shared the general distaste for Jung in our circles, but when I really thought about him, I ended up wanting also to recognize and 'ode' his courage and his discipline. The Red Book is no small feat. Honoris causa.
I became interested in Jung many years ago, but as my education was extensively in Lacan and his philosophical disciples, Jung was mostly denigrated. Rediscovering my interest in Nietzsche eventually led me to recognise a very important kernel in Jung. The ‘distaste’ you describe is interesting, and perhaps justified overall, but it’s always interesting to see what happens when it is resisted.
Lacan was my formation too, along with a good deal of quite rigorous theology and a natural predilection for nominalism, individuation, the particulars of literature and relativist anthropology. And then, for good or for ill and by no conscious decision of mine, I got tapped for initiation into Andean high or cosmological shamanism and started a subsequent (neophyte) practice along with my mainstream religious (Roman Catholic) discipline. Still, I did not like either the Jungian or the scientistic reduction in the current wild discourse around the rise of global neo-shamanism. (No, Virginia, shamanism is not -- peace to my mentor Alberto Villoldo -- a primitive name for quantum physics!) But I did and do think there is resistance here on my part and among the analytic intelligentsia in general, and resistance is always worth both honoring and exploring. So thanks for the ode, yes, and a nod to Jung, though not .....not yet?...an .embrace!!!!
I also like this post. I thought I shared the general distaste for Jung in our circles, but when I really thought about him, I ended up wanting also to recognize and 'ode' his courage and his discipline. The Red Book is no small feat. Honoris causa.
I became interested in Jung many years ago, but as my education was extensively in Lacan and his philosophical disciples, Jung was mostly denigrated. Rediscovering my interest in Nietzsche eventually led me to recognise a very important kernel in Jung. The ‘distaste’ you describe is interesting, and perhaps justified overall, but it’s always interesting to see what happens when it is resisted.
Lacan was my formation too, along with a good deal of quite rigorous theology and a natural predilection for nominalism, individuation, the particulars of literature and relativist anthropology. And then, for good or for ill and by no conscious decision of mine, I got tapped for initiation into Andean high or cosmological shamanism and started a subsequent (neophyte) practice along with my mainstream religious (Roman Catholic) discipline. Still, I did not like either the Jungian or the scientistic reduction in the current wild discourse around the rise of global neo-shamanism. (No, Virginia, shamanism is not -- peace to my mentor Alberto Villoldo -- a primitive name for quantum physics!) But I did and do think there is resistance here on my part and among the analytic intelligentsia in general, and resistance is always worth both honoring and exploring. So thanks for the ode, yes, and a nod to Jung, though not .....not yet?...an .embrace!!!!