sweet effay

Not very convinced by that! But still, you should really talk to Christian as he's currently working on a project that argues that Deleuze was really a Jungian all along. I think he might even have an article about it in Angelaki.

Oh, I didn't post it to convince you; I posted it to annoy you!

I'm not convinced that Deleuze was Jungian all along: Their relationships with myth and theology are miles apart. Jung is definitely a humanist and seems to have a strong line in teleology I get the feeling that he doesn't like Nietzsche either. As I said though, it's early days yet.

Nothing annoys me these days. Anyway, I should point out that Christian's thesis is just to do with Deleuze's Masoch work (I think), so probably not as grand a claim as I insinuated above.

Humanism and teleology you say, though, I might have to really get into this guy!

I would be curious to know what you both think of my idea...of what I see is a fundamental disagreement between Deleuze and Jung.

Am I on to something? Am I a dope?

If you want...check this out here.

Thank you, Mr. Effay.

loudbuzz,

Thanks for the link. I think you're right about the fundamental distinction between D&G's constructivism arising via a productive unconscious and Jung's collective unconscious. However, rather than say that psychological meaning cannot be grasped for Jung, I would say that it is only ultimate psychological meaning that cannot be grasped because we only have access to the archetypes via what appears to be infinite levels of symbols. He thinks that we can consciously understand something of the meaning of the symbols.

The map/tracing thing is obviously correct and ties in to the allusion I made to myth in my response to Infinite. The point is that, for Jung, whilst the collective unconscious appears completely chaotic because we don't have direct access to it, in actual fact there is some form of order; hence the universality in, for example, the 'big dreams' which are common to all cultures. D&G's unconscious is chaotic until it self-organizes and/or has order imposed upon it. The major distinction between the two could possibly be boiled down to the presence of innate ideas in the collective unconscious. I'm a bit tentative on this though, as I need to read more Jung.

Is the glass half-empty for Jung? I'd say not; rather it is magically full so that, no matter how much we drink, we never even get to the halfway point. He's a very optimistic guy!