> > 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.
Richardo, I hope what I just wrote to Ed says this a little better. > > 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. But *I* am not doing this work, I'm pointing to someone who did. > '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. Q.E.D. Bill _______________________________________________ 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.
