On Jung and Science.

I have heard that Jung has been marginalized in the psychological profession, as well as psychotherapy in general, for being “too unscientific”.

I posit this as a simple test:

If Science goes hand-in-hand with empiricism, I recommend that one TRY Jung. TRY Camus. TEST what it means to be Nietzsche. Do your own experiments. Find out if it works. This is the scientific method.

Kohlberg was not the only person to point out that the most moral people were also the most individuated, although this individuation is not to be limited to mere Relativism, for at one point or another they purportedly discovered Universals: Subtle trends in the course of human history which seemed available to a select few who had ventured out of society’s norms, either by necessity, curiosity, or some other unknown motive.

Your life is important; it may very well be the only thing you can trust. To invest too much faith in information is to be simply Socratic; to invest too little is to show up to a battlefield unarmed. Let us not marginalize ourselves by treating our devices as dogmas. So much depends upon the human subjective factor, yet our homogenous era of decadence and technological entitlement obscures what it has meant to be a human. Let us not obscure our teachers, seeing a man lecturing on Nietzsche and saying merely, “He is a philosopher.” Let us recall that when we see the World we never see it as it is, but as WE are. One can look upon the professor of philosophy through the lens of Science and not see the unique bouquet subtle wisdom he conveys. Yet the one of these views must be simply a perpetuation of the Old and the other a vulnerability to the New; they cannot be fairly equated. We have lost so much of our ability to confront the Other as something unlike ourselves to be respected and seldom judged, and never according to the conventional social constructs of Conventional Morality. So many of my peers have become unanimous and identical in their frames of reference that I have heard it said and implied that mine is merely “opinion,” whereas theirs is “fact”. Is this not an appeal to Mass Opinion? Is the forgetfulness or pardon of this Classic Fallacy, the avoidance of which had served the human being for centuries* **, not an early symptom of Fascism?

If you want to know what it MEANS to be Human – If you want to see the extent towards which all facts are in fact opinions – and if you intend to pass judgment on a man like Jung, in the name of Science and Empiricism, Do a test. Find out for yourself.

 

*Prior to the attack upon traditional philosophy in the midst of Modernity, which left us vulnerable to its bastardisation.

 **It may be true that I do not have it on good authority that this is historically sound. It may be, in "fact" [that is, according to the evidence of our historical accounts] that the formal logical fallacies have only been around for less than a hundred years. Why should I trust the evidence of Wikipedia over my own intuition, however? Why not value a hunch over a conviction? If it may be "true", by the authority of historicity, that this is a more recent rule and tool in academia, then my argument should suffer no sleight except that it becomes a poetic exaggeration as opposed to an "objective truth". But if one cannot, as of yet, derive an Is from an Ought, then why should a pathos lie lower than a logos on the totem pole of credibility?

The Negative Anima and the Anima have in common that they deal with all that Rational man has marginalised: Aesthetics, detail, and intuition.
The Negative Anima exploits the reasoning intellect, with its rigid opposition to these "minute details", in order to perpetuate its own dogma. Only by acknowledging the importance of Aesthetics, detail, and intuition (all tradition qualities of Art) can one free oneself of her paradigm and emancipate oneself of her clutches, lest she sink her teeth into the throat of the Anima.

Dm.A.A.