Geigerich's dialectics

[Gany]

Dialectics is getting a lot of air-play these last few years and it
calls to be looked at, brings attention to itself in a big way. So am
just posting some scattered thoughts...

When I read Wolfgang's writings it shouts lacuna- there is an
mistakable lack of spontaneity, and a lack of destructiveness and that
results (for me) in a pallid appeal to imagination. Alternatively
there is an admitted control of the dialectic deduction process, a
willfulness, albiet afforded within the image, says Geigerich.

Kristeva notes the refusal of destructiveness that comes from Hegel's
subordination of all things to Unicity (the black hole idea). This was
precisely Donald Winnicott's criticism of Jung's obsession with "self"
and "mandalas" which Winnicott says was a defensive denial of
destructiveness. That defensive stance is exactly why Hillman
criticized "The Self" as presented by Jung, and why he favoured the
term 'soul'. Geigerich's Hegelian approach does differ from Jung's in
that Jung often started off with separate but antagonistic opposites
in need of reconciliation, whereas Wolfgang says (with Hegel) that the
Unicity of the contraries is there from the outset, and that dialectic
formulae will help us to notice it. But regardless of the differences
between Jung and Giegerich the defensive appeal to Unicity is there in
both writings.

Whats the point of submitting something to a mental negating process
only to end up finally with ONE or a series of ONES..... a foregone
conclusion?

Regards,

Gany

[Gany]

Winnicott: 'Jung was preoccupied with the mandala, which from my point
of view is a defensive construct, a defence against that spontaneity
which has destruction as its next-door neighbour. The mandala is a
truly frightening thing for me because of its absolute failure to come
to terms with destructiveness, and with chaos, disintegration, and the
other madnesses. It is an obsessional flight from disintegration.
Jung's description of his last decades spent in search for the centre
of the self seems to me to be a description of a slow and wearisome
closing down of a lifetime of splendid endeavour. The centre of the
self is a relatively useless concept. What is more important is to
reach to the basic forces of individual living, and to me it is
certain that if the real basis is creativeness, the very next thing is
destruction.'

[Kraig Grady]

Jung only wrote one article on the mandala.true he focus on the
unbalanced character of the trinity which he attempted to shift to a
quarterly.

An answer to Job quite shows that Jung was quite aware of
destruction and chaos. in fact its suppression is what much of his work
examines as the parapathology of Christianity. i find his use of the the
term 'self' as our connection to things beyond the ego. he was not
philosophy cause he left much accent on the unknown, in fact on the
unknowable. the horizon beyond philosophy might Corbin say.

Self would include soul and spirit both. and JH's concerned with soul i
think is for good reason. the west has no good means to really deal with
spirit yet without that foundation.

JH though accents the 'south' and i find it interesting that he is
almost completely unknown here in Australia. the place which you would
think might be ripe for the global geographical foci of such a trend of
thought.


Both Jung and Hillman I think wish to deal with the problems at hand in
their locales and times on a mass scale more than a personal one.
sometimes on a personal level we fit other times we don't, sometimes we
do in ways that the latter can be minor in comparison . at least JH will
hit me in the face that way. Jung did in my youth


/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',