It seems to me that a major reason that both authors fall into the trap you mention is that they were operating within the context of the modern scientific paradigm; which always seeks to explain any phenomena in linear models that are formulaically reproducible. Jung was of course a prominent figure in the emerging field of psychoanalysis, which sought to be scientifically respectable, and Wilber fancies himself a scientist of sorts. I am not saying it is the only factor, but it does seem like a big one. It also appears that older 'sciences' were much broader in scope with more room for their own flaws built within them.
There's a lot to say in response. The most important is this question: Which authors, living or dead, do you think offer the best ROI to readers inclined to metabolize what they read in ways that help them reclaim their time and energy to live the lives they want?
I think the main thing is to consume stuff that inspires you to keep moving forwards with the work that you need to do. I think it's hard to get this from intellectuals because they are rarely on a dialectical pathway.
I agree it is not a good idea to read Jung as he didn't write anything for ordinary readers - except his autobiography Memories, Dreams and Reflections. I don't think the pushed a linear path; but he did address middle age a bit so a stage related scheme. Also Jung inspired many of the best therapists to write and develop his work like Marion Woodman, James Hillman etc.
Yes it could be said that via his book Memories Dreams and Reflection Jung was a catalyst who attempted re-authenticate the open-ended psychic nature of the human and world process. Trapped as it was in the dominant flatland linear paradigm.
It seems to me that a major reason that both authors fall into the trap you mention is that they were operating within the context of the modern scientific paradigm; which always seeks to explain any phenomena in linear models that are formulaically reproducible. Jung was of course a prominent figure in the emerging field of psychoanalysis, which sought to be scientifically respectable, and Wilber fancies himself a scientist of sorts. I am not saying it is the only factor, but it does seem like a big one. It also appears that older 'sciences' were much broader in scope with more room for their own flaws built within them.
There's a lot to say in response. The most important is this question: Which authors, living or dead, do you think offer the best ROI to readers inclined to metabolize what they read in ways that help them reclaim their time and energy to live the lives they want?
I think the main thing is to consume stuff that inspires you to keep moving forwards with the work that you need to do. I think it's hard to get this from intellectuals because they are rarely on a dialectical pathway.
I agree it is not a good idea to read Jung as he didn't write anything for ordinary readers - except his autobiography Memories, Dreams and Reflections. I don't think the pushed a linear path; but he did address middle age a bit so a stage related scheme. Also Jung inspired many of the best therapists to write and develop his work like Marion Woodman, James Hillman etc.
Yes it could be said that via his book Memories Dreams and Reflection Jung was a catalyst who attempted re-authenticate the open-ended psychic nature of the human and world process. Trapped as it was in the dominant flatland linear paradigm.
I think the intellect is more of a hindrance than a help in therapy
he was right about that collective unconscious stuff doe. i hope u weawize dat
Yeah that was a good theory
Oh, the arrogance.