Section 1... off we go!
I THINK IT will be evident that AJ and I have different approaches and styles when it comes to thinking and writing about texts. I expect his posts to be much more organized and focused than mine. I am much more prone to rambling, leaps, and tangents. I hope that you bear with me and find something interesting. My ‘style’ is not just sloppiness, it is a very conscious decision—though it may be misdirected I stand by it. The hope is that the gaps and flights will leave room for further discussion.
THE FIRST thing that I want to point out is Jung’s fascination with Nietzsche. There are two whole volumes of lectures that Jung did on Nietzsche (Amazon). I have not read them yet because I hope to get all of Nietzsche’s Will-To-Power and a few hundred more pages of Jung under my belt before I do. (And they are a bit spendy.) Though I can often see places in Jung’s ideas that hint at Nietzschean influence. I often like to think that Jung and Heidegger (who’s works are very heavily influenced by Nietzsche) would have had a lot of productive things to say to each other if they would have had a chance to meet—and if Heidegger’s awkward involvement with National Socialism had not taken place. In any case, I think Jung is just as radical as Nietzsche is. Jung’s idea of what the human being is and can become are pretty different from what we commonly think. As a result I am going to be reading Jung in a way that emphasizes those differences.
JUNG’S ESSAY on synchronicity points out in more detail what he thinks of statistical truth—i.e. science. One of the many things that he points out so powerfully in that essay is that things in ‘real life’ happen much more often than they are supposed to statistically. Oddities and strange occurrences are in fact more common than we are lead to believe by the statistical worldview. He cites evidence that Astrology is far more accurate than it ought to be according to statistics; though it is not necessary something that you can rely on. He cites other data and experiments that support his case for a-causal relationship that defy laws of physics and challenge the idea that everything is explainable through cause and effect in the physical world.
Synchronicity is meaningful coincidence, but it is coincidence in the sense that it is not causal and therefore not physical. What I am getting at here is that in other places—like this essay and his introduction to the first German translation of the I Ching— he more fully supports his claim that our scientific understanding of the world misses a lot of significant realities. In “The Undiscovered Self” he is trying to free the individual from scientific and statistical generalization. In other works he tries to free the physical world and the world of experience. I deeper and more radical reading of this book with regard to this issue (which I will be doing) is supported by these other works and is not just a product of my imagination.
RELATED TO THIS is the distinction that Jung makes between understanding and knowledge. I think this distinction is a sort of grounding for a lot of what is said in this section.
Knowledge is the scientific (and often academic) way of dealing with things. Knowledge tires to be objective, it is factual, broad reaching, aims to be universally applicable and very reliable. It is based on material facts and a commitment to establishing a certain and stable body of knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge dissects, abstracts, categorizes and classifies. Knowledge aims more at a domination of its subject and less on a relationship to it.
Understanding is (as I see it) an older and more everyday way of dealing with things. It is deep, relational, and provisional. Understanding is based on experience and a commitment to its subject. The pursuit of understanding digs deeply into the subject and its world. It enters into a commitment of concern (or care) with the subject. Understanding aims more to work with its subject in a collaborative relationship and is not as interested in dominating its subject.
THOUGH AJ WILL likely disagree with me (and as I read on in the next section I think he is closer to the text), I think that Jung’s concern is not limited to the European politics of the 40s and 50s that lead to WWII and Stalinism in the USSR. I think that he was also concerned with what was happening to the individual in America with the dawn of that we now call mass culture and mass media—and even globalization and westernization. Even if he was not concerned with this (and it is possible and understandable that he did not see it coming) I think this first section gives us a good foundation from which to look at and analyze the decline of the individual and world diversity in the face of mass culture, mass media and westernization. In terms of a critique of our materialistic and alienated culture this may serves as a better foundation than Marx. (But then again I never liked Marxist critique much anyway, though I do have a great respect and admiration for Marx’s writings themselves.)
In a sense I think that the abstract state and culture that he talks about turns into a weak (or even backdoor) totalitarianism. What I mean is that it is not leasers and a vocal and forceful minority (or even majority) that takes control in an obvious way to dominate and change society but ideologies that are uncritically subscribed to that dominate society by dominating the way that people think and act. This is a way of controlling the masses not by force but by persuading and leading people who are not critical of the ideologies that direct their lives. (I may return to this later in light of what he has to say about creeds, which is akin to the sort of ideology I am thinking of here.)
Mass media and mass culture (consumerism really) lead us to act in ways that undermine our individuality and liberty by pacifying us with ‘information’ and material goods. In this sense corporations and economics are what we need to be concerned about today and not the state and culture—after all I think that culture in the US is dominated by economics and politics are primarily concerned with economic growth. (And of course we turn to the corporations for advice, leadership and results when it comes to economic growth.) This is just a hint at how I think this text can be interpreted as relevant to us now, and not just as a treatise against European politics of the last century.
I THINK JUNG makes a wonderful point when he talks about the two roles that the therapist has to play: that of trying to understand the patient and help them and that of being the doctor who is caught up in scientific knowledge. I have seen firsthand how therapists can dominate their patients with theories to the detriment of their individuality. I think this is often made worse by the fact that we see medication as a magical cure all for problems like depression and anxiety. What happens is that the therapist does not deal deeply with the individual but merely modifies the habits and brain chemistry of the patient in order to make them a productive and content member of society. I think every therapist should be made to read and meditate on this passage in Jung regularly.
I THINK IT will be evident that AJ and I have different approaches and styles when it comes to thinking and writing about texts. I expect his posts to be much more organized and focused than mine. I am much more prone to rambling, leaps, and tangents. I hope that you bear with me and find something interesting. My ‘style’ is not just sloppiness, it is a very conscious decision—though it may be misdirected I stand by it. The hope is that the gaps and flights will leave room for further discussion.
THE FIRST thing that I want to point out is Jung’s fascination with Nietzsche. There are two whole volumes of lectures that Jung did on Nietzsche (Amazon). I have not read them yet because I hope to get all of Nietzsche’s Will-To-Power and a few hundred more pages of Jung under my belt before I do. (And they are a bit spendy.) Though I can often see places in Jung’s ideas that hint at Nietzschean influence. I often like to think that Jung and Heidegger (who’s works are very heavily influenced by Nietzsche) would have had a lot of productive things to say to each other if they would have had a chance to meet—and if Heidegger’s awkward involvement with National Socialism had not taken place. In any case, I think Jung is just as radical as Nietzsche is. Jung’s idea of what the human being is and can become are pretty different from what we commonly think. As a result I am going to be reading Jung in a way that emphasizes those differences.
JUNG’S ESSAY on synchronicity points out in more detail what he thinks of statistical truth—i.e. science. One of the many things that he points out so powerfully in that essay is that things in ‘real life’ happen much more often than they are supposed to statistically. Oddities and strange occurrences are in fact more common than we are lead to believe by the statistical worldview. He cites evidence that Astrology is far more accurate than it ought to be according to statistics; though it is not necessary something that you can rely on. He cites other data and experiments that support his case for a-causal relationship that defy laws of physics and challenge the idea that everything is explainable through cause and effect in the physical world.
Synchronicity is meaningful coincidence, but it is coincidence in the sense that it is not causal and therefore not physical. What I am getting at here is that in other places—like this essay and his introduction to the first German translation of the I Ching— he more fully supports his claim that our scientific understanding of the world misses a lot of significant realities. In “The Undiscovered Self” he is trying to free the individual from scientific and statistical generalization. In other works he tries to free the physical world and the world of experience. I deeper and more radical reading of this book with regard to this issue (which I will be doing) is supported by these other works and is not just a product of my imagination.
RELATED TO THIS is the distinction that Jung makes between understanding and knowledge. I think this distinction is a sort of grounding for a lot of what is said in this section.
Knowledge is the scientific (and often academic) way of dealing with things. Knowledge tires to be objective, it is factual, broad reaching, aims to be universally applicable and very reliable. It is based on material facts and a commitment to establishing a certain and stable body of knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge dissects, abstracts, categorizes and classifies. Knowledge aims more at a domination of its subject and less on a relationship to it.
Understanding is (as I see it) an older and more everyday way of dealing with things. It is deep, relational, and provisional. Understanding is based on experience and a commitment to its subject. The pursuit of understanding digs deeply into the subject and its world. It enters into a commitment of concern (or care) with the subject. Understanding aims more to work with its subject in a collaborative relationship and is not as interested in dominating its subject.
THOUGH AJ WILL likely disagree with me (and as I read on in the next section I think he is closer to the text), I think that Jung’s concern is not limited to the European politics of the 40s and 50s that lead to WWII and Stalinism in the USSR. I think that he was also concerned with what was happening to the individual in America with the dawn of that we now call mass culture and mass media—and even globalization and westernization. Even if he was not concerned with this (and it is possible and understandable that he did not see it coming) I think this first section gives us a good foundation from which to look at and analyze the decline of the individual and world diversity in the face of mass culture, mass media and westernization. In terms of a critique of our materialistic and alienated culture this may serves as a better foundation than Marx. (But then again I never liked Marxist critique much anyway, though I do have a great respect and admiration for Marx’s writings themselves.)
In a sense I think that the abstract state and culture that he talks about turns into a weak (or even backdoor) totalitarianism. What I mean is that it is not leasers and a vocal and forceful minority (or even majority) that takes control in an obvious way to dominate and change society but ideologies that are uncritically subscribed to that dominate society by dominating the way that people think and act. This is a way of controlling the masses not by force but by persuading and leading people who are not critical of the ideologies that direct their lives. (I may return to this later in light of what he has to say about creeds, which is akin to the sort of ideology I am thinking of here.)
Mass media and mass culture (consumerism really) lead us to act in ways that undermine our individuality and liberty by pacifying us with ‘information’ and material goods. In this sense corporations and economics are what we need to be concerned about today and not the state and culture—after all I think that culture in the US is dominated by economics and politics are primarily concerned with economic growth. (And of course we turn to the corporations for advice, leadership and results when it comes to economic growth.) This is just a hint at how I think this text can be interpreted as relevant to us now, and not just as a treatise against European politics of the last century.
I THINK JUNG makes a wonderful point when he talks about the two roles that the therapist has to play: that of trying to understand the patient and help them and that of being the doctor who is caught up in scientific knowledge. I have seen firsthand how therapists can dominate their patients with theories to the detriment of their individuality. I think this is often made worse by the fact that we see medication as a magical cure all for problems like depression and anxiety. What happens is that the therapist does not deal deeply with the individual but merely modifies the habits and brain chemistry of the patient in order to make them a productive and content member of society. I think every therapist should be made to read and meditate on this passage in Jung regularly.
posted by Zophorian at 12:58 PM
4 Comments:
I'm curious to see what you think of my second point. Theory has its uses and abuses. But I think it's incredibly valuable. I'm sure you agree as a philosophy-type. To categorize someone and treat him in a narrow, prescribed framework is an injustice. Using theory as a primer or starting point, as a frame of reference or consult is necessary to the lives of psychologists, educators, doctors, etc. It's the big picture that most of us can't derive for ourselves (at least not at our age).
As you say, it's when we adopt the theory, uncritically, wholesale, etc. that we run into trouble. Unfortunately, this is what most people do.
Am I being to pessimistic?
Theory is like a myth (especially in pre scientific societies)... It is invaluble but also very limited.
Not pessimistic… or at least not overly so.
Theory is invaluable in its limitations. When a theory fails, the party starts!
I like parties... :)
Post a Comment
<< Home