Re: a kind of a reply to Jon
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Sun, 29 Nov 1998 14:43:46 +1100
> But your reasoning in defense of the existence of the collective
> unconscious is the same kind of reasoning that validates astronomy,
err ... you *did* mean astrology, right? (:
> numerology, and Freudian psychoanalysis. The "evidence" you offered can
> be explained a number of different ways--the question you should be
> asking is, "Why should I believe it's an expression of a collective
> unconscious rather than something else?"
>
> The problem I have with the idea is that it's essentially a religious
> concept being passed off as a scientific one. It's only something we
> could attain through some kind of revelation, and I just don't have that
> kind of faith in Jung.
I can certainly see your point here. There was once a massive argument in
my drama class about this very topic, and surprisingly, I was on the side
that said that humans are basically locked in hotel rooms and communication
is like calling room service. But that goes further to explain my position.
I don't necessarily believe that humans are, at least on a conscious level,
like a group of those English houses which are essentially separate but
whose attics join together. But I *do* think that there is something which
connects us all and makes us all respond to one another, something that
goes beyond science (and in many ways I think psychoanalysis is far more a
religious than scientific discipline anyway) and into the realms of things
far beyond our understanding. It's not something I could explain or justify
but just a suspicion, or an inkling maybe, I don't know. But when I read
Jung's theories it really struck something in me - which maybe is an answer
in itself.
Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
@ THE INVERTED FOREST www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest