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'm sure other writers have vaguely speculated about it here and there, but BK's new book is extremely thorough, clear and compelling in its case for Jung's metaphysical idealism. It would be like a philosopher systematically analyzing the metaphysical implications of Goethe's scientific framework within 50 or so years of his life (that's the best analogy I can think of right now).

I am currently trying to quicken its spread into the broader community via Twitter, just tweeting it out to anyone who has some sort of audience and is interested in Jung, such as Laura London and her "Speaking of Jung" podcast. Through that, he may be able to discuss/debate with someone like James Hollis, who is probably considered the foremost 'expert' on Jung these days. I expected BK to make a really good case as he usually does, but honestly the book blew away my expectations. It addresses all kinds of objections and apparent 'inconsistencies' which could be raised by a skeptic, and it provides a clarity to Jung's system of thought that I did not even think was possible. What do you guys think?

[Soul_of_Shu]

I don't do facebook, but do have a rarely used twitter account, with a grand total of 7 followers. While I rarely comment on youtube, I have mentioned BK's books there whenever it seems relevant. I'll certainly do what I can to help DJM get the attention it deserves.

[Brad Walker]

No.

[SanteriSatama]

Much of the analytically inclined philosophical community thinks that Jung is a nobody, and so do continental Freudians/Lacanians. I love Jung, but that does not mean we should over estimate his influence in the contemporary attention economy.

I'm curious about what BK makes out the of the 'aspect dualism' of Jung-Pauli dialogue and how he relates that to metaphysical idealism and neutral monism.

[Soul_of_Shu]

FYI ... in the comments of the video below, I recommended DJM to Spencer who created the Thoughts on Thinking YT channel, and he just answered that he'll look into it, so perhaps he'll do one of his commentaries on it ...

[SanteriSatama]

Snow Leopard,

Who does this guy look like?

http://www.knowledgefederation.org/imag ... tzsche.jpg

[AshvinP]

Much of the analytically inclined philosophical community thinks that Jung is a nobody, and so do continental Freudians/Lacanians. I love Jung, but that does not mean we should over estimate his influence in the contemporary attention economy.

That community doesn't matter. I just want to see anyone with far reach, and any academic or scientific pedigree, to start taking metaphysical idealism seriously and advocating for it explicitly. JP would probably be the best case scenario here, as he takes Jung very seriously and would probably be convinced by BK's arguments. He's also the kind of person who will take a new insightful idea and run with it. A combination of BK and Hoffman on him would really get the job done IMO.

I'm curious about what BK makes out the of the 'aspect dualism' of Jung-Pauli dialogue and how he relates that to metaphysical idealism and neutral monism.

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'.

[AshvinP]

FYI ... in the comments of the video below, I recommended DJM to Spencer who created the Thoughts on Thinking YT channel, and he just answered that he'll look into it, so perhaps he'll do one of his commentaries on it ...

Nice, that would definitely help spread the word.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Snow Leopard,

Who does this guy look like?

Superman's alter ego?

[dkpstarkey]

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.