Tripe Trip

• Information on an evolutionary perspective on transvestism? by Dr Brian Robinson, 4/12/97
  • (...)
    
    • Arch tripe ... by Brian Robinson, 2/14/98
      
      

There is no doubt about it: Jung was and is a cult figure. I appreciate the feeling that he acted as if he had a direct pipeline to gods/God. I only met him once, when he was old (eighty's) and found him confident but not truly arrogant. Of course that is the perception of a then 20 something year old enthusiast. Wonder what I would have thought now.

I read Jung rather like I read A.N. Whitehead. When I am in the right (diffuse) space each of these people seems wise. When I move to a critical space then I get, well, critical. Certainly Jung liked to "show off" with his Sanscrit footnotes and all the rest.

I have no idea what he was really like as a therapist. I do get the feeling that he truly appreciated human diversity. But then there is the point, well raised, that his political agenda had some nasty overtones. "Primitive" versus "civilized" people is not a language that sits well today.

I also agree that those who like "fluff" often gravitate to people like Jung. Reading him is a good way to maximize both a sense of mystery and resolution of mystery - at the same time. The fact that, in some sense, these two feelings are at opposite poles can in itself go unnoticed. One can also pick and choose from his writings, rather like finding the right quote in the Bible or some other similar text. Wisdom is where we choose to find it, I guess.

As a "humble" (HA!) biologist what I retain in Jung is some realization that even our most complex forms of behavior may have deep evolutionary roots. Archetypes were one way to express that idea, an idea more popularized by Jung than invented by him. [Rather like Lorenz's popularization, rather than discovery, of "imprinting" - Spaulding's baby.]

Leaving personalities aside, I truly believe that a useful quest is to try and probe beneath the surfaces of what we do in everyday life. I confess a Darwinian (ethological) bias, so I tend to look at the possibility that we come into the world with a pretty well wired set of biases, constraints, blind spots, etc. These can serve us well, and can also get us into big trouble! I remain impressed that Chomsky opened a door in linguistics that was an important (essential, but not "essentialism") departure from simple behaviorism. Sure, "innate knowledge" is more of a metaphor than an explanation, but it helps guide us to places we might otherwise not seek. Archetypes are, in detail, really sloppy ideas. But then, they are also ideas (I think Jung is right here) that surface time and time again. Those of us with an analytical bent might ask, how similar in form do different expressions of an "archetype" have to be before we say its a "different archetype" or no archetype at all. That is, where indeed are the ultimate constraints in how we think, feel and operate? How do these constraints relate to the fact that we, today, are creatures with a long ancestral history (Darwin)? If the ideas are sloppy, should we ignore them, or try to refine them? If we try to refine them, then how do we go about doing so? Etc.

My current bias is that evolutionary thinking a developmental thinking must come together. That's not a cliche. We still do not understand the polarities of constraint and flexibility in human action. [In preparing a previously failed grant, I have been looking hard at the literature on constraint and flexibility in certain aspects of more "simple" brain wiring - fascinating!]

In my "next life" I would love to be a mixture of cultural anthroplogist, evolutionary biologist, and child psychologist - with good friends in neuroscience, molecular biology, etc. Maybe that's why I went into ethology in the first place: none of these things, but an excuse to look across traditional disciplines. Hence enjoying this site.

Guess I can't defend Jung, nor am I especially inclined to exert the effort. I might, however, see what he (and others) say in their own language, and then decide whether I can get anything out of the pseudo dialogue.

Here we have a genuine dialogue. Cool!

Best to all. John

• John and Brian, Meet One Another by James Brody, 2/15/98
  • Hi Brian - Thanks Jim by John, 2/19/98