Search found 10 matches

Go to advanced search

Display posts from previous
Sort by

As someone who's taught Jung's Psychological Types theory I ought to know what i'm on about and Amzolt is presenting a very creative interpretation here. As far as I'm aware it has no support from either the text in question or subsequent interpretations by the ''Post Jungians''. The few Psychologi...

Fair enough, Instead of repeating myself twice, let me rephrase the statement. Your inferences from Carl Jung's vast body of eclectic work may be right on some level, however, because Jung drew from so many eclectic resources you could also be wrong on many other levels. I have one question for you ...

Perhaps the crux of the problem is merely a confusion in terms then.

For example, an Earth/Thinking type may relieve itself by a full out immersion in the senses, but then in turn is associated with the term 'Sensation' because of the symptoms it displays.

The Air element, which is conventionally aligned with Thinking, is displaying this quality as a 'compensatory effect' spurned on by Sensation. And the Earth element, which is conventionally aligned with Sensation, is displaying this quality as a 'compensatory effect' spurned on by Thinking. That's t...

compensation

What I'm getting is: The observed 'effect' is a 'compensatory process' springing from the primordial cause. (I Ching demonstrates this beautifully) javascript:emoticon('8)') Therefore, perhaps rational types are quintessentially irrational, and irrational types are quintessentially rational- if this...

Go to advanced search