Jump to content
Recent News
  • Want to schedule tuition or a project meeting? Please use the new Availability Schedule as a guide to see my whereabouts on a given day.
  • NEW pictures from Frankston's 2018 Big Picture Fest! Click HERE to see the album.
  • LiquidFractal is pleased to welcome our newest academic organisation - the Complex Processes Research Group at Swinburne University! Click HERE for more information.
  • This site is always evolving, and your opinion matters! Please post your thoughts and feedback in the Suggestions forum.
rhlangan

How Nietzsche made me 'not a Jungian'



Recommended Posts

My view of Nietzsche was mainly through Lucy Huskinson's work on Jung and Nietzsche--as well as Jung's reading of Nietzsche-- and so I was missing something. Reading Nietzsche directly, I saw that 'God is dead' and 'Apollo vs Dionysus' was barely scratching the surface, and Nietzsche's philosophy was less about demolition than it was construction and honesty in motive, especially pertaining triumph of active forces over ressentiment and bad passions.  There is something in Nietzsche that is very visceral, almost Whitehead-ish at times--he's constantly talking of differences of forces and processes, rather than post-hoc static study of things. There's a passage somewhere in Beyond Good & Evil, I forget where, where he sort of 'gives away the game' of what he's doing and defines the Will to Power as these sort of forces; or rather, he states, quasi-hypothetically, "If I were to define the Will to Power as this...". And from that moment on I realized he was as very much covertly systematic as I think Deleuze or Bergson or any of those guys are, once you pull back the rhetoric. They're building something that requires the archetype, the virtual, the active... whatever you want to call it... both within and without, a concrete universal of the world. I think reading Nietzsche directly sort of gave me the confidence to consider all that without Jung as the foundation for me, if that makes sense. 

I think that all resonates a lot with what's in Jung, but not starting with the container of 'mind' to get there, which in some ways becomes even more liberating I think, in the same way archetypes being found in nature 'frees' them from futile talk about "do we find them in genes? Or brain structures? Or...". I think all that talk is a waste of time, anymore than trying to find genes for broad personality features often is dubious. I think that 'passage' into the world is what a lot of us who study Jung juxtaposed against another philosopher--whether it be Spinoza, Schelling or Deleuze- are after. Unrelated but I should also note that a 'whole that is never reached' is a very Deleuzian idea as well (The Virtual Idea is never finished). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please create an account or sign in to comment.

Only registered Members can post comments.

Create an account

Take a minute and sign up as a Member. Free and easy!

Become a Member

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In

Privacy & Terms

All use of LiquidFractal's website and services, paid and/or unpaid, is subject to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Registration.

About LiquidFractal

LiquidFractal is an open-learning website proudly devoted to the cultivation of bright students, intelligent minds, and the fun and productive exchange of ideas to lead us collectively into the future.  Please click About for more information on the site's philosophy, goals and values, as well as answers to Frequently Asked Questions.  Click Professional Services, above, to learn about the services I offer.

LiquidFractal, ABN 14 381 107 723

×

Important Information

Hello guest! In using this site you implicitly agree to LiquidFractal's Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines.