Decoding Jung's Metaphysics - Watershed Moment for Idealism?

[AshvinP]

It just dawned on me that BK's new book may be a huge deal, if it gets any sort of widespread attention. Jung is widely recognized as one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century. And, to the best of my knowledge, no one else has systematically explored his metaphysical position.

I'd say BK has accomplished exactly what the title says, and the result is fairly stunning for me. I've been studying Jung and Hillman for a while and this book lays a more substantial philosophical foundation for archetypal psychology (my interest) than even Hillman managed to do. Hillman came to metaphysics late in life.

Stunning indeed. The more I think about, the more stunning it gets. Being the first person to explicitly 'decode' the metaphysics of a thinker of Jung's magnitude is a real feat to behold. Especially at a time when psychology does appear to be taking its rightful place as "queen of the sciences".

[SanteriSatama]

He shows pretty clearly and convincingly that Jung was not a dual-aspect monist, and that Jung was often measuring his words with Pauli. He would often use the word "psychic" to mean the psyche proper (ego), rather than the instinctual or higher-cognition aspects of the unconscious psyche, but he viewed all three as being continuous and made of the same substance, along with the 'external' world of 'matter'.

Thanks. Jung walking Pauli as far as he can go in their dialogue sounds very plausible. If at a given situation physicalists can be moved only as far as dual-aspect monism, that's still better than materialism.

[dkpstarkey]

Stunning indeed. The more I think about, the more stunning it gets. Being the first person to explicitly 'decode' the metaphysics of a thinker of Jung's magnitude is a real feat to behold. Especially at a time when psychology does appear to be taking its rightful place as "queen of the sciences".

I'm curious to know how you see psychology advancing. Isn't it becoming more neurological, or do you mean other branches?

[AshvinP]

Stunning indeed. The more I think about, the more stunning it gets. Being the first person to explicitly 'decode' the metaphysics of a thinker of Jung's magnitude is a real feat to behold. Especially at a time when psychology does appear to be taking its rightful place as "queen of the sciences".

I'm curious to know how you see psychology advancing. Isn't it becoming more neurological, or do you mean other branches?

I'm just referencing the anecdotal progression. Some of my favorite 'public intellectuals' are formally educated psychologists, like Jordan Peterson, John Vervaeke and Donald Hoffman. There are others I respect as well like Jonathan Haidt, Gad Saad, Gabor Mate. Not so much Steven Pinker, because of his anti-religious agenda. I guess the main point is that, if metaphysical idealism is going to make a 'comeback', as I think it very well could, then non-reductionist and non-rationalist psychology must be involved in that process as well.

[AshvinP]

Dana, a quick update here - I tweeted the Thoughts on Thinking guy (I can't remember his name), and it looks like our philosophical pincer movement may have paid off.

[SanteriSatama]

Meanwhile:

[AshvinP]

Meanwhile:

Yeah that was a good one. I posted a link/excerpt to Harpur's article on Essentia Foundation which basically says the same thing.