Is it me, or is Jung hard to read?

[Eric B]

I for some reason have always found the text of http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm hard to digest and follow.
It seems to be just an archaicness of it (I alway got bored reading really old literature). Or maybe it has to do with the translation from German?
He's supposed to be INTJ, right? So I wonder if that could be part of it.

I'm trying to really get the sense of what he was saying, since Technical and others have been saying that MBTI has drifted from Jung, and that Socionics or Lenore Thomson's ideas are truer to Jung.

[wivesandknives]

haha, York U.

and I skimmed, it looks pretty..straightforward. :mellow:

[aelan]

Eric, do you believe in the concept of a subconscious collective in the concept of the Shadow? What do you understand by it? That's where Jung differs from Freud.

[Eric B]

I'm totally new to that stuff, and Lenore Thomson had given me a basic definition of the collective unconscious. It's about stuff like public values, or something like that, if I remember correctly. Like how Christmas is just something that remains in society's psyche. The realm of memes, I guess.
I hope I have that right. (I'm really not the person to ask on this particular stuff. A month ago I knew absolutely nothing about it, and was spooked by the sound of it, like it was some kind of Borg concept or something. Still not really intereted in that depth of Jung's concepts at this point. I'm focused on type).

[gardnerj]

My psych teacher said he's very dense.

[digesthisickness]

My psych teacher said he's very dense.

well, gar-ly. if SHE said it, it's final.

[gardnerj]

well, gar-ly. if SHE said it, it's final.

yeah obvi

[digesthisickness]

yeah obvi

huh. guess you fell off your chair.

[Technical]

I for some reason have always found the text of http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm hard to digest and follow.
It seems to be just an archaicness of it (I alway got bored reading really old literature). Or maybe it has to do with the translation from German?
He's supposed to be INTJ, right? So I wonder if that could be part of it.

I'm trying to really get the sense of what he was saying, since Technical and others have been saying that MBTI has drifted from Jung, and that Socionics or Lenore Thomson's ideas are truer to Jung.
It took me a long time to get through Jung's mysticism and abstruseness, and figure out what he was really thinking. I believe I have, at least to the point necessary to be able to discuss it with confidence.

I advise not taking it literally, for starters.

[Vagabond]

My psych teacher said he's very dense.
Or maybe s/he is.

[Hermione]

Or maybe s/he is.


Haha. That would be one's first interpretation of that. Most of us don't use the term "dense" in an academic way anymore. I think she is saying caution : Jung isn't for the dull of intellect by any stretch of the imagination. In other words you may be a genius yourself, but will still have to go over and over that sucker to comprehend. lolz It's true too. He had way too much going on at one time and a lot of them were new concepts with which even he wasn't familiar. At least he is humble about it--but you have to look very deeply to find that hidden in his literature. A fucking genius isn't the easiest to read no matter what field you are in. I have found the same to be true of philosophy , medicine , physics. They all get extremely deep at points. Very heady stuff. Complex conceptual stuff.

[Ptah]

Is Jung hard to read? Of course. So it goes for all varieties of nonsense.

[surrealist]

Where did you get that link?

I found Jung vague but easy to understand, of course, you will have a hard time understanding his thoughts and ideas if they have not occured to you before in some or other form.

[Technical]

Where did you get that link?

I found Jung vague but easy to understand, of course, you will have a hard time understanding his thoughts and ideas if they have not occured to you before in some or other form.
I have to ask, which of Jung's types would you say most closely represents the average INTP?

[surrealist]

I have to ask, which of Jung's types would you say most closely represents the average INTP?

I will have to get back to you on that, I have only read bits and parts of Jungs writings. I will have a look at his type descriptions and get back to you.

[Technical]

I will have to get back to you on that, I have only read bits and parts of Jungs writings. I will have a look at his type descriptions and get back to you.
The answer is Introverted Intuitive. I asked because most, even I once, would have said Introverted Thinking, due to MBTI brainwashing.

[Jonnyboy]

I for some reason have always found the text of http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm hard to digest and follow.
It seems to be just an archaicness of it (I alway got bored reading really old literature). Or maybe it has to do with the translation from German?
He's supposed to be INTJ, right? So I wonder if that could be part of it.

I'm trying to really get the sense of what he was saying, since Technical and others have been saying that MBTI has drifted from Jung, and that Socionics or Lenore Thomson's ideas are truer to Jung.

Why say something with a picture when you can say it with 1000 words?

[Ferrus]

As David Hume said:


What though these reasonings concerning human nature seem abstract, and of difficult comprehension? This affords no presumption of their falsehood. On the contrary, it seems impossible, that what has hitherto escaped so many wise and profound philosophers can be very obvious and easy. And whatever pains these researches may cost us, we may think ourselves sufficiently rewarded, not only in point of profit but of pleasure, if, by that means, we can make any addition to our stock of knowledge, in subjects of such unspeakable importance.

[Hermione]

As David Hume said:

Well indeed. At least someone understands. :theclap:
.

[Perseus]

I for some reason have always found the text of http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm hard to digest and follow.
It seems to be just an archaicness of it (I alway got bored reading really old literature). Or maybe it has to do with the translation from German?
He's supposed to be INTJ, right? So I wonder if that could be part of it.

I'm trying to really get the sense of what he was saying, since Technical and others have been saying that MBTI has drifted from Jung, and that Socionics or Lenore Thomson's ideas are truer to Jung.

Frances Wickes is very readable if, like me,you cannot digest CV Jung neat.

The Inner World of Choice (Paperback)
by Frances G. Wickes (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Inner-World-Choice-Frances-Wickes/dp/0938434357

[ColinH]

It definitely seems unnecessarily wordy.

[Eric B]

I can read wordy stuff a lot of times; so it's hard to quite put my finger on what it is about this text that seems so dense. (reading through it again right now). Choice of words? No; that's probably not it. The way he builds up his points or goes off to support them? Probably that.

[Hermione]

He writes about things that are very hard to explain and unfortunately he pulls from other subject areas in trying to do just that. Thereby making it even more difficult for most of us. It takes a lot of reading and rereading but I unfortunately got hooked on reading him. So the only thing that got me through it was the obsession to do it. And that was before grad school in Psych. I am such a glutton for punishment is about all I can say. It's easier to read Jungians about jungian psych than to decipher the man himself. He has a huge huge intellect, but has a lot of trouble pinning the ideas down. I kind of relate to his weird writing, but not to the massive intellect part. Mine is just minorly massive so I have to work hard at it. He and some of the philosophers really really made me feel so stooopid. lol

[Perseus]

He writes about things that are very hard to explain and unfortunately he pulls from other subject areas in trying to do just that. Thereby making it even more difficult for most of us. It takes a lot of reading and rereading but I unfortunately got hooked on reading him. So the only thing that got me through it was the obsession to do it. And that was before grad school in Psych. I am such a glutton for punishment is about all I can say. It's easier to read Jungians about jungian psych than to decipher the man himself. He has a huge huge intellect, but has a lot of trouble pinning the ideas down. I kind of relate to his weird writing, but not to the massive intellect part. Mine is just minorly massive so I have to work hard at it. He and some of the philosophers really really made me feel so stooopid. lol

You are lovely, like a Healer INFP.

[Technical]

You are lovely, like a Healer INFP.
LMAO Oh Christ that was perfect.

[kali]

I for some reason have always found the text of http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm hard to digest and follow.
It seems to be just an archaicness of it (I alway got bored reading really old literature). Or maybe it has to do with the translation from German?
He's supposed to be INTJ, right? So I wonder if that could be part of it.

I'm trying to really get the sense of what he was saying, since Technical and others have been saying that MBTI has drifted from Jung, and that Socionics or Lenore Thomson's ideas are truer to Jung.I'm not going to even try, but it says "Translation by H. Godwyn Baynes (1923)" so maybe the fault lies in the translator. Though most likely not. I once tried reading a Freud book on dreams, but I fell asleep halfway through, perhaps that was his intention.

If they ever implement your idea of a 3D pacman, I want to try it out. Demetri Martin tried to introduce a 3D sudoku but that didn't really catch on.

[somnium]

The ideas are hard, but there's definitely the prose style that is far more turgid than it need be. Since I don't read German, I can't say how much of that is the fault of the translator, but I suspect both author and translator are guilty.

On the other hand, I found the effort required was well rewarded. So much so that I'd like to read the Collected Works again: I read about half of them when I had access to a university library, something that I now sometimes desperately miss. (Buggered if I'll spend whatever it takes to buy Jung's collected works, plus The Art of Computer Programming, plus any symphonic scores I take a fancy to, plus umpteen other reference works in diverse subjects, ... only to dip into them about 5 minutes per year because I don't have the time anymore anyway.)

[somnium]

Btw there is far, far more to Jung than the ideas that gave rise to type theory.

[Eric B]

He writes about things that are very hard to explain and unfortunately he pulls from other subject areas in trying to do just that. Yeah, that seems to be it. He seems to go off on tangents for a bit, and it's hard to tell what is what at time, and then you start skimming through and either missing stuff, or wondering what you might have missed.
Thereby making it even more difficult for most of us. It takes a lot of reading and rereading but I unfortunately got hooked on reading him. So the only thing that got me through it was the obsession to do it. And that was before grad school in Psych. I am such a glutton for punishment is about all I can say. It's easier to read Jungians about jungian psych than to decipher the man himself. Yeah, as I don't have this problem reading John Beebe or Lenore Thomson, and they use a lot of the same terminology. Since they are drawing upon Jung, I wanted to check them by him (since they have different interpretations of him), and found it was really hard to grasp him.


I'm not going to even try, but it says "Translation by H. Godwyn Baynes (1923)" so maybe the fault lies in the translator. Though most likely not. I once tried reading a Freud book on dreams, but I fell asleep halfway through, perhaps that was his intention.
I wondered about that too. Maybe they should have new translations or something.


If they ever implement your idea of a 3D pacman, I want to try it out. Demetri Martin tried to introduce a 3D sudoku but that didn't really catch on.
Thanks!
I don't even know how to get the idea through to them, as the gamemakers apparently got tired of receiving all the game ideas from fans.
I think I may have heard of a 3D sudoku. Wonder why it didn't catch on. (I do see they have a bunch of free flash versions).