--- Louis Kontos <Louis.Kontos at liu.edu> wrote:
When you
> ask 'why not Jung', I'm not sure about the point of
> your question.
You are obviously new to the list. I am sarcastic and that was one instance of my sarcasm. The point is that neither Jung nor Freud were scientific. Of course, that in itself doesn't mean they were completely wrong: they were creating models. I would say that giving their success that they werent very good models.
If the collective unconcious as a model has any credibility then it must be somehow be biologically based and passed on genetically. Why do you say it has a basis? I am not disputing it,just wondering.
> ther empirical nor
> directly relevant to an
> understanding of contemporary and historic events as
> Freudian theory.
How are the jungian archetypes any less empirical than Freuds triumvirate: superego, id and ego?
-Thomas
===== <<You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals So let's do it like they do it on the Discovery Channel>>
Bloodhound Gang, "The Bad Touch"
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/