It’s no surprise to me. Jung is a lovely thinker, writer, artist, person — works of which are and have been integral to psychoanalysis, anthropology and mysticism alike. 

Many of his ideas to me however propose and validate a meta-language which caters to the aesthetics of our infantile wishes and omnipotent fantasies, and from perhaps a more authoritative voice than any old voice on the mount or soapbox. 

He seems to leave little room for doubt with regard to synchronicity which to me places the blatant dismissal of sexuality (as central to the theory of the drives toward human understanding) as hypocritical if not downright suspicious.

It’s no surprise to me. Jung is a lovely thinker, writer, artist, person — works of which are and have been integral to psychoanalysis, anthropology and mysticism alike.

Many of his ideas to me however propose and validate a meta-language which caters to the aesthetics of our infantile wishes and omnipotent fantasies, and from perhaps a more authoritative voice than any old voice on the mount or soapbox.

He seems to leave little room for doubt with regard to synchronicity which to me places the blatant dismissal of sexuality (as central to the theory of the drives toward human understanding) as hypocritical if not downright suspicious.

  1. sinthematica posted this