Bill Arnold wrote: > The stubborn empiricist cannot cope with Jung, who requires the student > to cross some mental bridges, without which the journey cannot happen.
Can you see the process? You qualify 'empiricist' as 'stubborn', no dissent possible, no proof of you affirmation. You also say 'cannot cope'. Why? Could you say 'will not accept Jung's premises'? I think it's a less prejudiced expression. 'Cross mental bridges', why not express it as 'believe without proof'? Language is a funny thing. Very plastic. And it can be used, but also abused. > The whole idea of the unconscious is, by definition, that which we're > not conscious of (because if we were, then it would be conscious), so > the very first step into his thinking requires accepting that something > can exist that we can't touch/see/weigh/measure. You should first define and delimit clearly what you mean by 'conscious', then you have to prove that 'unconscious' is not empty. Then you have to prove that whatever you put into that bag belongs there. Don't play the definition game, we can all do it. 'something can exist that we can't touch/see/weigh/measure'... and again with the language, you are saying 'something', isn't a 'thing' something that you can 'touch/see/weigh/measure'? About the 'existance' of the unconscious I would not state a position before we agree on the extension of the term. > > But does he prove the existence of this unconscious, then? Yes, > absolutely, beyond a doubt. In fact, the most unfortunate side of this > is that there are people who use this knowledge to manipulate others, > such as our "friends" in Hollywood, Madison Ave and Washington. > > >>> We also pass on our collective unconscious to our children. >> The notion of 'memes', as first put forth by Dawkins. > > > I see there has been some exploration of the connection between Dawkins, > memes and Jung, such as > http://www.geocities.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/Archetypes.html and it > is tempting to look into this, but I'm under $ pressure (what else is > new?). > > > > Bill > > >> -- Ed Leafe > > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
