Scott:
Well, Jung most definitely did present himself as a scientist. His work would be less objectionable on the grounds of fraud if he did not.
Quote:I wouldn't describe him as "anti-individualist," since his theories were after all devoted to the process of becoming an individual; if attempting to describe the anatomy of the psyche and showing what features are common to all folk is reductionist, then the term loses a lot of its sting since I do not consider such activity as being prima facie objectionable.
I most certainly find it objectionable. I see no evidence whatsoever that such a thing as "
the human mind" (my emphasis) exists. The human
brain is a common anatomical feature, but that fact does not mean that there exists a common "human mind" or "psyche". Further, how much of a genuine individual can one become if one is constrained by a "collective unconscious", by the influence of "archetypes", and the like? Jung is less a reductionist than Freud, to be sure, but, in the end, the effect is largely the same, to me.
Quote:To say that to describe common features of the human thought process is reductionist is like saying that because behavior can be adjusted pharmaceutically we are just a series of chemical reactions, without any real differentiation or individualization.
I'm afraid that I do not follow this analogy at all. Given our wildly divergent premises--I reject the very idea of such a totalizing statement as "the human thought process"--I doubt that further dialogue between us on this subject will be fruitful. All I can say is that I am as opposed to physical reductionism as I am to psychological reductionism.
Quote:Don't forget that "racial memory," which CAS used in "Ubbo-Sathla" (and REH used in several stories) is closely related to the notion of "collective unconscious," which is in turn modified by the personal unconscious.
I wouldn't deny that CAs could have found themes that might have interested or even inspired him in Jung's work (although they might just as easily have inspired a "Schizoid Creator"-type
jeu d'esprit), but one cannot assume from that possibility that CAS would have given any more credence to Jung's theories than he did to, say, notions of time travel. Here, I think we agree.
Phillip:
I'm afraid that we'll have to agree to disagree regarding Jung's dogmatizing, methods, and aims, although I agree that he at least had the virtue not being a scientific materialist, as Freud was. I freely confess that all psychologizing is reductionist, to me, and thus I have no patience with any of it. That isn't to deny the value of psychology as a tool (just as I would not deny the value of medicine as a tool), but I cannot accept the notion that psychology, be it Freudian, Jungian, or whomever-ian, ultimately
explains anything.