> > What I will say is that the research that led me to Jung and his work > > began with the idea that I would seek out the best thinkers in history > > and learn from them, rather then depend on some middle-person >> practitioner's translation. Indeed, I'm trying real hard not to fall
> > myself into that category. If there is a message in what I'm saying, > > it's to read what Jung himself said, not what I or others say about > > him. > > I think this is a very important point. His gift wasn't just the > > ability to understand, but to convey that understanding in a very precise way. > > I approach things differently. I would never be satisfied focusing > on just one man's interpretation of things, no matter how brilliant, > insightful or gifted. I think the parable of the blind men trying to > describe an elephant is particularly apt in this regard. Any one > person's experience and insight is always only a small part of the > total of what it means to be human. Ed, I did say "best thinkerS". Jung was the end of a progression that started with Socrates and Plato. And studying Jung isn't just about him, because his work is loaded with references to others. He was after truth, not popularity. We can relate to that, right? 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.
