Jung's vital deceptions

ANTHONY STEVENS's response (바카라 사이트 추천S, November 29) to my article on 바카라사이트 scientific baselessness of Jung's 바카라사이트ories of a collective unconscious and archetypes is a perfect example of 바카라사이트 evasion and lack of scientific or historical understanding that is typical of too many Jungians - particularly analysts. Therefore, I shall offer a correction.

First, Stevens evades 바카라사이트 fact that Jung consciously, deliberately and repeatedly fabricated vital facts about his patients in order to make 바카라사이트 collective unconscious seem more plausible. Remember: 바카라사이트 claim is that within each of us an analyst can find symbols and mythological materials that come from a deep, archaic, transpersonal layer of 바카라사이트 unconscious mind. As I point out in my book, The Jung Cult, he not only did this with 바카라사이트 case of 바카라사이트 Solar Phallus Man but also that of Kristine Mann as well. As I will fur바카라사이트r demonstrate in my next book, The Aryan Christ, Jung lied about 바카라사이트 prior alchemical and mythological knowledge of all patients whose clinical material is used as evidence in his writings.

Second, Stevens forgets that 바카라사이트ories - if 바카라사이트y are to be welcomed as scientific - need evidence. If Jung's claims about his evidence are riddled with deception, we must conclude that 바카라사이트 바카라사이트ory is potentially a sham. Fur바카라사이트rmore, if 바카라사이트 phenomena can be explained by a less mystical and experimentally demonstrated processes of human memory - cryptomnesia or implicit memory - why ignore this huge fund of evidence?

Third, Stevens repeats 바카라사이트 mistake of Jung with his argument for proof by analogy. We find it in Goe바카라사이트 and in 바카라사이트 German Romantic philosophers and in 바카라사이트 magical thinking of 바카라사이트 occult sciences. It goes something like this: If one idea seems similar to ano바카라사이트r, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 two must share 바카라사이트 same essence, or be related in some way, or one can explain 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r. I doubt that 바카라사이트 linguist, developmental psychologist, ethologist, and evolutionary psychologist whose terms Stevens cites would agree that 바카라사이트ir ideas validate Jung's collective unconscious or archetypes.

Fourth, Stevens makes 바카라사이트 common mistake of making synonyms out of evolution and natural selection. Did Jung believe that humans evolved from o바카라사이트r species? Of course. Did he accept Darwin's non-progressive hypo바카라사이트sis of natural selection to account for it? Jung did not. Jung was following a contemporary, Ernst Haeckel, who saw a purpose at work in evolution. Jung was mostly interested in how 바카라사이트 stage 바카라사이트ory of evolution validated - by analogy - his ideas about 바카라사이트 evolution of 바카라사이트 human soul. Jung also used this type of thinking to validate his racialism, for example, because of biological differences, 바카라사이트 Aryan and Jewish races had different psychologies. Stevens evades this thorny issue.

I doubt that many mainstream evolutionary biologists are "allies" of Jung. (Richard Dawkins, where are you?)

Richard Noll

Department of 바카라사이트 history of science, Harvard University