The article was contemporary with the movement it was critiquing.
I’m aware, the date didn’t escape me, hence “dated and uninformed.”
While psychology is still way more art than science, and perhaps because Jung hasn’t received proper credit or attention to his work to date imo, it discounts how incredibly tied to subconscious/superconscious our favorite mythos are. Humans seek to explain the mysterious through our mythos, and both sub- and superconsciousness lies just outside the realm of consciousness.
And I’ve been thinking about his overall rejection by left, right, and center, for reasons. For well over a year now. I understand the leftists’ squeamishness because of a foolhardy hope in the most basic goodness of humankind, one that perhaps I share with him. The centrists may dismiss him for lack of familiarity.
That the liberals dismiss and even discourage utilizing his work ought make us pause and ask ourselves why. After all, the conservative right isn’t as cautious about establishing a public distance from those who have had a hope in known Nazis/adjacent as the left liberals. Perhaps liberals mock and discourage his work not only because it’s slow and doesn’t return people to the machine quickly enough, but also because it’s effective, if only the general populace has time, space, and most importantly, impetus to actually roll up the proverbial sleeves and do the time and labor intensive proverbial dirty work.
Okay let me see if I understand this correctly you believe the article is “dated and uninformed” because it’s close to a first hand account of the hippie movement and it doesn’t take into account Jungian philosophy?
Sounds like you aren’t ready to do work that is necessary to understand the material conditions of the time period. Why should a socialist analysis of the flower power include the philosophy of psychologist, especially one as controversial as Jung? How can you expect to understand an event or even time period in history if you just dismiss all accounts from the period as dated?
That’s quite a lot of extraneous words you just put into my mouth. I clearly understand the* article, and I didn’t retype what I agreed with.
You asked:
I’m curious as to what was uninformed about it though?
That is what I answered.
I addressed the left, right, and centrist criticisms of him (a bit oversimplified),
foolhardy hope in the most basic goodness of humankind, one that perhaps I share with him
No, I don’t want to intentionally cozy up to Nazis. Yes, at some point, if we believe in socialism, we will have to start working with and organizing ourselves with reactionaries.
The centrists may dismiss him for lack of familiarity.
And you, perhaps. Where exactly do you think the term “projection” has it’s roots? What exactly do you think is being projected when people project?
That the liberals dismiss and even discourage utilizing his work ought make us pause and ask ourselves why. After all, the conservative right isn’t as cautious about establishing a public distance from those who have had a hope in known Nazis/adjacent as the left liberals. Perhaps liberals mock and discourage his work not only because it’s slow and doesn’t return people to the machine quickly enough, but also because it’s effective, if only the general populace has time, space, and most importantly, impetus to actually roll up the proverbial sleeves and do the time and labor intensive proverbial dirty work.
Sounds like you are projecting your unwillingness to examine yourself onto me as not being willing to understand blah blah blah. I clearly did understand it, since it was in my original question,
I’m wondering if it’s because there were largely disorganized and co-opted, and if there’s some reading you can point me to explain more.
Jung didn’t have much to do with the flower power movement. I find his theories to be overly liberal and chauvinistic at best and lacking in any basis in material reality, as well as somewhat poorly worked through. I did think he was cool when I was in high school. But if you want Jungian analysis that’s fine go find it.
Not trying to be overly snarky, but I have no desire to discuss philosophers and/or psychologist who struggles so much with empirical evidence. Marxism is based in material reality.
foolhardy hope in the most basic goodness of humankind, one that perhaps I share with him
If I didn’t believe that there was basic goodness in humankind I would not have bothered to respond.
If you want to know more about the actual flower power movement look up Allen Ginsberg.
Jung didn’t have much to do with the flower power movement.
Please copy and paste where I said that.
I find his theories to be overly liberal and chauvinistic at best
I would like to explore that. Can you give me some examples?
and lacking in any basis in material reality, as well as somewhat poorly worked through.
You can think that. I stopped smoking, doping, drinking, and using sexual relationships as a drug that way. I became much less reactive and reactionary. So have plenty of others.
Marxism is based in material reality.
So… Marx wasn’t a philosopher? I guess Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist ML’s have no place in your world.
Ideas aren’t material, nor emotions, nor ideas.
If I didn’t believe that there was basic goodness in humankind I would not have bothered to respond.
I would like to explore that. Can you give me some examples?
As I have previously stated I don’t wish to continue talking about him, it seems to get in the way of a civil conversation.
Marxism is based in material reality.
So… Marx wasn’t a philosopher? I guess Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist ML’s have no place in your world.
Of course Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist ML’s are completely acceptable in my world view. It’s just that as Marx said:
Religion is the opiate of the masses.
Opiates can save lives and they can just as easily destroy lives. So religion must be handle with extreme care. Of course Marx was a philosopher, but all of his work is based on material reality. Every premise he states is based on observable evidence, such as the state of the British working class. Every conclusion he makes is backed up by logical proofs. MCM doesn’t come from some feeling but is a description of an observable reality.
I would like to explore that. Can you give me some examples?
As I have previously stated I don’t wish to continue talking about him,
So I am willing to consider your PO perspective (because I actually may agree), and you’re talking about material evidence but want to drop this?
Ok.
it seems to get in the way of a civil conversation.
For whom?
Religion is the opiate of the masses.
I largely agree, but it’s not going to be a cold-turkey abstention.
Opiates can save lives
First I’ve heard of this.
So religion must be handle with extreme care.
Agreed.
Of course Marx was a philosopher, but all of his work is based on material reality. Every premise he states is based on observable evidence, such as the state of the British working class. Every conclusion he makes is backed up by logical proofs.
And I presented some for my argument.
MCM doesn’t come from some feeling but is a description of an observable reality.
I’m aware, the date didn’t escape me, hence “dated and uninformed.”
While psychology is still way more art than science, and perhaps because Jung hasn’t received proper credit or attention to his work to date imo, it discounts how incredibly tied to subconscious/superconscious our favorite mythos are. Humans seek to explain the mysterious through our mythos, and both sub- and superconsciousness lies just outside the realm of consciousness.
And I’ve been thinking about his overall rejection by left, right, and center, for reasons. For well over a year now. I understand the leftists’ squeamishness because of a foolhardy hope in the most basic goodness of humankind, one that perhaps I share with him. The centrists may dismiss him for lack of familiarity.
That the liberals dismiss and even discourage utilizing his work ought make us pause and ask ourselves why. After all, the conservative right isn’t as cautious about establishing a public distance from those who have had a hope in known Nazis/adjacent as the left liberals. Perhaps liberals mock and discourage his work not only because it’s slow and doesn’t return people to the machine quickly enough, but also because it’s effective, if only the general populace has time, space, and most importantly, impetus to actually roll up the proverbial sleeves and do the time and labor intensive proverbial dirty work.
Okay let me see if I understand this correctly you believe the article is “dated and uninformed” because it’s close to a first hand account of the hippie movement and it doesn’t take into account Jungian philosophy?
A bit oversimplified, but sure.
Edit:
Sounds like you aren’t ready to do work that is necessary to understand the material conditions of the time period. Why should a socialist analysis of the flower power include the philosophy of psychologist, especially one as controversial as Jung? How can you expect to understand an event or even time period in history if you just dismiss all accounts from the period as dated?
That’s quite a lot of extraneous words you just put into my mouth. I clearly understand the* article, and I didn’t retype what I agreed with.
You asked:
That is what I answered.
I addressed the left, right, and centrist criticisms of him (a bit oversimplified),
No, I don’t want to intentionally cozy up to Nazis. Yes, at some point, if we believe in socialism, we will have to start working with and organizing ourselves with reactionaries.
And you, perhaps. Where exactly do you think the term “projection” has it’s roots? What exactly do you think is being projected when people project?
Sounds like you are projecting your unwillingness to examine yourself onto me as not being willing to understand blah blah blah. I clearly did understand it, since it was in my original question,
Leaving out the doping was oversight.
Jung didn’t have much to do with the flower power movement. I find his theories to be overly liberal and chauvinistic at best and lacking in any basis in material reality, as well as somewhat poorly worked through. I did think he was cool when I was in high school. But if you want Jungian analysis that’s fine go find it.
Not trying to be overly snarky, but I have no desire to discuss philosophers and/or psychologist who struggles so much with empirical evidence. Marxism is based in material reality.
If I didn’t believe that there was basic goodness in humankind I would not have bothered to respond.
If you want to know more about the actual flower power movement look up Allen Ginsberg.
Please copy and paste where I said that.
I would like to explore that. Can you give me some examples?
You can think that. I stopped smoking, doping, drinking, and using sexual relationships as a drug that way. I became much less reactive and reactionary. So have plenty of others.
So… Marx wasn’t a philosopher? I guess Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist ML’s have no place in your world.
Ideas aren’t material, nor emotions, nor ideas.
Ok?
As I have previously stated I don’t wish to continue talking about him, it seems to get in the way of a civil conversation.
Of course Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist ML’s are completely acceptable in my world view. It’s just that as Marx said:
Opiates can save lives and they can just as easily destroy lives. So religion must be handle with extreme care. Of course Marx was a philosopher, but all of his work is based on material reality. Every premise he states is based on observable evidence, such as the state of the British working class. Every conclusion he makes is backed up by logical proofs. MCM doesn’t come from some feeling but is a description of an observable reality.
So I am willing to consider your PO perspective (because I actually may agree), and you’re talking about material evidence but want to drop this?
Ok.
For whom?
I largely agree, but it’s not going to be a cold-turkey abstention.
First I’ve heard of this.
Agreed.
And I presented some for my argument.
MCM? Also what I just said.