From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #178 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Monday, August 14 2000 Volume 02 : Number 178 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Freud & Jung types ["Jennifer Stevenson" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 04:00:28 -0500 From: "Jennifer Stevenson" Subject: Freud & Jung types Don writes, > Storr is in fact correct that the average reader looking for insight into their own > psychology and that of people they know are likely to founder in this stuff. > > It's no wonder (though it's a shame) that Freud's clearer, more > to-the-point writings are better known and more influential. This is one of the problems of dealing with the messy interiors of humans. Evelyn Fox Keller wrote a fascinating little volume on the history of genetics and embryology called (argh, can't find it on my shelf, it's 4am and I don't want to wake Rich with the lights). Anyway her core point was that the history of genetics is a clearcut battle between the "freud" types and the "jung" types, just like the history of science is a battle between the "magic" ("Nature is sacred and mysterious and whole") types and the "science" ("nature is a machine made up of parts") types. The early scientists divided into two camps: one looking for the "arrow" that pointed to a top-down hierarchy of "genetic command" to "genetic slaves"; and the other looking at the development of foeti as a =relationship= between equal forces: sperm, egg, "matrix" (meaning, the woman and her body), and embryo. The "arrow" guys had the "sexier" thesis--at least, from a male scientist's POV--and they won the battle for many decades. But it's beginning to be seen that the war is tipping in favor of the "relationship" guys. (Keller names Barbara McClintock as an example of this latter type who has achieved belated recognition and following.) It's beginning to seem (even to the arrow/geneticists) like what happens between DNA, RNA, and cells is more a dialogue than a master-slave hierarchy. Notice the difference: the more popular group were "looking FOR" proof of hierarchy and supereme masculine power. The losers were "looking AT" relationships; they weren't so sure of what they wanted to find, and they were willing to look at something that looks remarkably like a big mess for a long time without getting "conclusive proofs" of any damn thing. Speaking as someone who's writing in a much-scorned "relationship fiction" genre, I find this very interesting. But I digress. The big difference between Freud and Jung is that Freud was reductionist and Jung was inclusive. Your lumper is always going to be less organized, because he's describing circular and dialogic (two-way) relationships rather than cause->effect events. It can take a looong time to get clarity when studying things that are this messy, and boy is the human mind messy. Why do guys so often hate "the relationship conversation"? Is it because it takes so long to get to the fucking point already? Or because they're innately impatient? There, this memo-grenade should be amply loaded. I can now disappear for another five weeks. ; > - -Jennifer ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #178 *****************************