Re: a kind of a reply to Jon
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Sat, 28 Nov 1998 12:24:22 +1100
J J R wrote:
> I have to agree with Scottie here--Jung is nonsense. There's a
> difference between common experiences (feeling and watching the sun rise,
> fallling in love, being betrayed) and a collective unconscious.
In what way? What is it in humankind which generates the idea of the
zeitgeist? Why is it that artists, thousands of miles apart living on
different continents start painting pictures that are almost exactly the
same? Why is it that we respond to the same things whether we are African
Zulu tribespeople or Eskimos? Why does nearly *everyone* at one time or
another have those horrible dreams where you walk through town naked? This
`common experience' is what I see as the collective unconscious. And anyway
Jim - how can you be so dismissive of a theory? Everything's a theory; you
can choose not to subscribe to it but you can't really say `That's wrong'.
Now *Freud*, for example - I personally think he's full of shit (: To
paraphrase Vladimir Nabokov, I don't know how a daily application of Greek
gods to the genitals is going to help anybody. But a lot of people firmly
believe in his theories and could give you as many reasons why as I could
give you reasons that Jung's are plausible.
http://www.jungindex.net/society/
Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
@ THE INVERTED FOREST www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest