>Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:13:43 -0800
>To: "K.E. Macphee" <[log in to unmask]>
>From: Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Err... quaint?
>In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
>
>Can we agree that they have progressively slipped from the virtually
unchallenged position they once held in psychological and literary theory?
>
>At 10:21 AM 12/16/99 +0000, you wrote:
>>Mark Weiss wrote:
>>
>>> That Freud, Jung and Fraser now begin to appear quaint
>>> doesn't lessen the value of work that assumed theory as fact.
>>
>>Can't comment on Fraser, not having read him, but re Jung and
>>Freud, IMHO they can hardly be called "quaint". You might think
>>they reflect some of the biases and predilections of their time
>>or of their own particular complexes (I'd agree, as would many
>>post-Freudian/Jungian theorists), or you might disagree entirely
>>and even violently with the precepts of psychoanalysis/analytical
>>psychology (I wouldn't, and I find many Jungian ideas in particular
>>very resonant, particularly in the context of the individual practice
>>of writing), but *quaint*?
>>
>>Kona.
>>
>>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|