Re: a kind of a reply to Jon
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Fri, 27 Nov 1998 10:57:41 +1100
Scottie Bowman wrote:
> Without subscribing to any Jungian nonsense about a collective
> unconscious I feel there *is* a deep pool of common experiences
> shared by most people in our culture & that it is into this that
> the great writer taps.
Why do you say it's nonsense when you appear to subscribe to it? I too
think there is something hardwired into our minds that links us all -
otherwise *nothing* could be universal - and I think Jung was just
recognising this.
> I still cannot see how individual, private
> projections do anything but dissipate the writer’s original vision.
I don't think it's a `dissipation' - any more than a radio transmission is
a dissipation. When a radio wave is transmitted it is in one unalterable
state. But think of all the different people all over the country who would
receive that wave - some on crystal-clear stereos, some on tinny little
radios, radios in the shower, bedroom, office, some receive loud and clear,
others can barely hear it through the static.
If we regard the original wave as the writer's intention - literally, a
communication - and the receiving of this wave as the reader's
interpretation and perception of this, you'll see that the process takes
place between the two - that is, of course the writer's message is sent in
one cognitive state, but it is once this has been put out in the world that
it `dissipates'
Please don't be scared of all our theories. Speaking for myself, I only
subscribe to theories which say things that I've observed myself in a much
better way than I could have said them. Like Will I enjoy your posts no
matter whether I agree with them or not - and like a few 'fishers I'm not
afraid to admit being scared of *you* in a schoolgirlish way occasionally
.. (:
Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
@ THE INVERTED FOREST www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest