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.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|