This begins with me, with my own assumptions, but those assumptions aren’t unique to me. I picked them up in proximity to an influential moment in feminist thought that radically reinterpreted the Freudian Oedipal Complex without actually abandoning it. Even to the extent that I absorbed a lot of the anti-psychoanalytic criticisms of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, I nonetheless remained strangely entrenched in some anti-patriarchal feminist frames that depended upon the psychoanalytic frame. Frustrating, but also useful right now as I revisit the whole mess with mature eyes.
To continue with the theme of the last post (posts about posts I want to make), I’m thinking that there is another set of posts I would like to be working on as well, on philosophical topics. I don’t have a sweeping plan for this, just some rough ideas. Since this is a blog, I’m thinking about how to do this in a way that is relatively concise but that doesn’t sacrifice clarity and depth. It might take a little work to strike the balance. This is work that I love and I would like to figure out how to share it.
Philosophical work is textual, so what I might end up doing is just pick out a short excerpt from a philosophical text and proceed to talk through what interests me about it. The post will open with a citation for the excerpt in case anyone feels the urge to read it for themselves. Since I really hope some people will read that material, I’ll try to limit each such excerpt to no more than a few pages.
Since I don’t update often and have several sets of posts that I want to work through, I expect this will all develop slowly. I’m curious to see how this might work out.
A reader of this blog wil surely notice that Carl Jung occupies a prominent place in my intellectual landscape. I discovered him in my youth and have returned to him again and again. It is a complicated relationship; every reading of him begins with pleasure and surprise but ends with frustration and disappointment. He was an astute observer, well-educated, a dedicated psychologist, a remarkably spiritual person. For all that, he is also deeply a man of his time, his writing caught between philology and scientism. Both of these are dessicative and, while that has its place in study, it leaves only traces of his subject matter’s vitality available to the reader. For an individual so caught up in spiritual matters, his accounts of spiritual life are startlingly abstract.
It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that so many who are actively engage in spiritual work disparage treating the spiritual world merely as a repository of archetypes. Psychologizing spirit is unsatisfying. However, in recoiling from it, we often overlook something quite important–spiritual matters are entangled with psychological matters. They aren’t identical with each other, but they aren’t disparate either. This is one reason why I keep coming back to Jung. While he didn’t get it quite right, he did get it. While I can’t simply rest intellectually within Jung’s work, I can wrest from it the means for getting at that entanglement more clearly.
I have been reading and thinking through a few disparate topics and have found in them a degree of unity that warrants some discussion. I don’t know exactly how many posts this discussion will take but it is clear to me that it will take more than one. The beating heart of the discussion revolves around Jungian psychological types, particularly the latter-day expressions like the MBTI. Because these topics are disparate, I want to make clear their thematic unity from the beginning. The posts will all share a bracket identifier as is my habit, with a numerical identifier: [Religious Types #].
While it falls under the rubric of my concern for religious communities, it will leapfrog from topic to topic. It is important to understand that I don’t mean to imply thereby that I am synthesizing those topics together. Rather, I am simply using each as a springboard into a discussion of the next.
I imagine these may make for a strange looking series, but so be it.