Expository or argumentative writing is not my bag, but I feel like I should defend Jung to this circle, hahaha! I think Peterson grossly misunderstands him (despite loudly identifying as a “jungian”, and being the conduit through which a lot of people meet the work of Jung) and I agree whole heartedly with Freud that it is not psychoanalysis. Personally, I think Jung is a contemporary magus, he is a mystic and more rightly belongs to the intellectual tradition of the west which has been occulted by its institutions. Appropriations of scientific method for Jung I feel was a Trojan horse. And I don’t think he sought a “cure”, so much as an “alignment” between personal and impersonal forces, the his work represents a communicative diplomacy between the spirt and the spirit realm more so than a therapeutic adaptation between the spirt and the spirit of the times. both for Freud and Peterson, I think Jung paints a very porous picture of the individual and subject. I think he is misunderstood because he describes leaning into this porosity as “individuation”.
I agree with all of this, and this paper has gotten really monstrous on me, but we will later discuss that we are trying to think Hegel with Last, which lets us sublate Jung with Freud and Lacan. I absolutely have in mind Jung as according to Rieff and Peterson here, but I think I'll add a paragraph to clarify that to Part 1. I also really like what you wrote ('And I don’t think he sought a “cure” [...] I think he is misunderstood because he describes leaning into this porosity as “individuation”.')--that's wonderful. If you don't mind, I'll have to quote you. Thanks Sam!
Just added a section to the paper based on your comment! Happy to change, edit, etc. anything, and thanks for taking the time to read and comment on this work. It means a lot.
Expository or argumentative writing is not my bag, but I feel like I should defend Jung to this circle, hahaha! I think Peterson grossly misunderstands him (despite loudly identifying as a “jungian”, and being the conduit through which a lot of people meet the work of Jung) and I agree whole heartedly with Freud that it is not psychoanalysis. Personally, I think Jung is a contemporary magus, he is a mystic and more rightly belongs to the intellectual tradition of the west which has been occulted by its institutions. Appropriations of scientific method for Jung I feel was a Trojan horse. And I don’t think he sought a “cure”, so much as an “alignment” between personal and impersonal forces, the his work represents a communicative diplomacy between the spirt and the spirit realm more so than a therapeutic adaptation between the spirt and the spirit of the times. both for Freud and Peterson, I think Jung paints a very porous picture of the individual and subject. I think he is misunderstood because he describes leaning into this porosity as “individuation”.
It’s very hard to think Jung with no notion of Dreamtime imo
I agree with all of this, and this paper has gotten really monstrous on me, but we will later discuss that we are trying to think Hegel with Last, which lets us sublate Jung with Freud and Lacan. I absolutely have in mind Jung as according to Rieff and Peterson here, but I think I'll add a paragraph to clarify that to Part 1. I also really like what you wrote ('And I don’t think he sought a “cure” [...] I think he is misunderstood because he describes leaning into this porosity as “individuation”.')--that's wonderful. If you don't mind, I'll have to quote you. Thanks Sam!
Just added a section to the paper based on your comment! Happy to change, edit, etc. anything, and thanks for taking the time to read and comment on this work. It means a lot.