Heidegger

Pattern title: Intersection of this and that
 
Design problem: This and that intersect under harsh Platonic illumination..
 
Design solution: Add a trellis to produce a pleasant lusco fusco effect.

— On Sat, 10/25/08, Janelle Cugley wrote:

From: Janelle Cugley
Subject: Re: heidegger Digest, Vol 21, Issue 53
To: heidegger at an-archos.com
Date: Saturday, October 25, 2008, 5:37 AM

How does Christopher Alexander realete to this topic?
—– Original Message —–
From:
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 8:11 PM
Subject: heidegger Digest, Vol 21, Issue 53

> Send heidegger mailing list submissions to
> heidegger at an-archos.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://an-archos.com/mailman/listinfo/he…
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body ‘help’ to
> heidegger-request at an-archos.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> heidegger-owner at an-archos.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than “Re: Contents of heidegger digest…”
>
>
> Today’s Topics:
>
> 1. NOT Jung on Martin Heidegger, apparently (michaelP)
> 2. Jung on Martin Heidegger - Certainly (GEVANS613 at aol.com)
> 3. Re: I am Self-Aware - Implicit First Person in Heidegger
> (Joseph Polanik)
> 4. [OT]: the list and jud (michaelP)
>
>
> ———————————————————————-
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 06:54:43 +0100
> From: “michaelP”
> Subject: NOT Jung on Martin Heidegger, apparently
> To: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
>
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”US-ASCII”
>
> Earlier…
>
>> In a message dated 10/24/2008 8:21:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>> michael at sandwich-de-sign.co.uk writes:
>> I will not allow myself the shameful pleasures of responding
>> point-by-point
>> to the ludicrous trollistic insults and deliberately distracting
tactics
>> displayed below by the self-appointed Jud-ge and Jewry of this here
list.
>> Except to say what bad repetitively unforgivably boring music results
>> from
>> such a ninkling on every opportunistic occasion for the decade-old
>> typical
>> rant of blind-death hatred for anything other than the miserable
half-fly
>> dregs of long-since disposed-disposable positivistic empiricist
hygienist
>> droning scribble (done a million times better anyway by the far more
suss
>> and interesting Wittgenstein).
>>
>> michaelP the ‘bad jew’ (bah!)
>
> by the way, of course I meant “blind-deaf” above not
“blind-death”,
> although…
>
>>>> MichaelP writes:
>>>> Oh Bernard, ye gods and dogs preserve us from such linguistic
and
>>>> psychoanalytic hygiene crews who would puritanically normalise
and
>>>> flatten
>>>> all signs of eccentric richness and divine madness and the
>>>> contamination of
>>>> a beautiful seepage of a here to a there (and back) — such an

>>>> intermezzo
>>>> of be-ing that can bring all whose dream is to think aright on
a
>>>> thrilling
>>>> and dangerous journey. What bad music issues from such palid
judges.
>
> says Bern now:
>
>> Hey, guys, before you lapse frantic. I also sent that Jung letter to
to a
>> Jungian group in Texas called Sfitz, an online Jung page, because
they
>> published an article by a fellow Jungian who saw a great sympathy of
>> understadning Between Jung and Heidegger. Most neo-Jungians are
entirely
>> sympathetic to the views of Heidegger. I sent the copy of the Jung
letter
>> to both the Heidegger group and the online Jung Page more to find out
if
>> the Jung letter was authentic. I have looked in most of Jung’s
published
>> works for any mention of Ontology and/or Heidegger and have found
none. I
>> also doubt Jung would have disparaged Nietzsche whom he wrote much
about.
>> I
>> am presently at work in my new book noting where Jung shows a great
>> sympathy for Goethe and his Faust and where the story of Faust and his

>> pact
>> with the devil showed a peculier parallel in Jung’s own
personality
>> developement. He was also well informed about Kant, Schiller,
Spitteler,
>> Worrinenger (cf., Jung’s *Psychological Types*). He was often
accussed by
>> his detractor’s as having Nazi affiliations. But his 1936
published essay
>> on *Woton* anticipates the bad outcome of the Third Reich based on the
>> dreams of his 1920’s German patients. In German legend Woton was
known as
>> the “wild hunter” or Hackleberg that characterized the Nazi
mood. But
>> during the early Christianization of Germany Woton, or Odhin was
>> identified
>> with the Wandering Jew, Ahasverus still celebrated as Shrove Tuesday.
>> There
>> is a link here between Germans and Jews simply because the Germans
>> resented
>> their forced Christianization, ie., Jesus was a Jew. This resentment
>> lingered and ultimately led to the Reformation where much of ritual
and
>> metaphysical Christianity was scrapped. Jung’s family. originally
German,
>> moved to Switzerland and Jung was in effect to become a germanophile
>> (cf.,
>> Dierdre Bair’s voluminous Biography of Jung). Much of the
theoretical
>> nature of his Analytical Psychology was gained in his intense study of
>> Kant. In his mature years he was interested in UFO’s and he saw
“eyes in
>> the skies” in some of my abstract drawings that I sent him
(1958-1960).
>> Sincerely
>> Bernard
>
> Bernard, it might have been more appropriate had you asked explicitly
> whether the quote might have originated with Jung along with the quote
> rather than just quoting. That being the case, I would have not responded
> at
> all (not knowing, although it seemed unlikely to my scant knowledge of
> Jung,
> didn’t sound right…). But because you floated the quote as if you
were,
> as
> it were, ‘agreeing’ or ‘going along’ with such sentiments
(or just being
> provocative), I reacted (as above) with instinctive horror at anyone
> making
> such barbaric statements. The rest followed because there is just one such
> that would agree, trade off and revel in such barbarity. But thanks for
> putting the quote in some kind of perspective.
>
> regards
>
> michaelP
>
>
>
>
>> Jud:
>> Ye gods and dogs preserve us from such foam-flecked and psychotic
>> Heideggerian pretermitters (we now know what the *P* designates in
>> MichaelP)
>>
>> Any silent acquiescence whatsoever to Heidegger’s notorious
racialism is
>> abhorrent in any human being. It matters little whether such an
>> acceptance
>> flows from an outright espousal of the right of one race to eliminate
>> another race a la Heidegger - or whether such assent is tacit,
understood
>> or implied.
>>
>> Acquiescence from *disoriented daseinic desuetude* or from the
>> withholding
>> of criticism by pretermission is a justifiable criticism which is
often
>> levelled at the German population. The usual defence from such people
is
>> the claim that to have spoken out against Heidegger’s hero’s
outrageous
>> practices meant certain death, or simply that they were ignorant of
what
>> was going on.
>>
>> Our resident number one pretermitter and abject apologist for
Heidegger’s
>> Nazi crimes against humanity has no excuse. Michael the Pretermitter
>> cannot
>> claim that it is dangerous for him to speak out against his
darling’s
>> exterminist proclivities, nor can he claim ignorance that this was
>> Heidegger’s acknowledged position, particularly in view of the
public
>> records and his hero Heidegger’s exorbitant blandishments of his
>> perverted
>> paladin Hitler.)
>>
>> If follows that we are therefore left to deal with the bad taste in
our
>> mouths of the unpleasant reality that is our resident apologist’s
>> disregard, excuses, denials, and refusal to see, and his allowing to
pass
>> the acts and political realities of this monster’s past in the
knowledge
>> of
>> his publicly known, vile utterances, constitutes a deliberately
conscious
>> stance, which manifests and demonstrates a tacit approval of this
>> maniac’s
>> unhinged mind.
>>
>> It is now generally acknowledged that the many recorded Anti-Semitic
>> texts
>> written by Heidegger are genuine, and that in accordance with
Heidegger’s
>> reputation as *an inveterate liar* no doubt there are many more being
>> protectively withheld, or that some where destroyed before the arrival
of
>> the allies and his flight into a lunatic asylum. Philosophers and
>> historians can be thankful that a clearer picture of this
>> metaphysicalising
>> megalomaniac has been preserved in the damning data which was in other
>> hands, including most of all his call for the extermination of
millions,
>> a
>> call which somehow went unmentioned and unnoticed by the
De-Nazification
> Tribunal.
>>
>> One wonders if that other well known creepy apologist Arendt was also
>> unaware of that document and whether if she had of been she would have
>> given him the same advice she did plus the hints she suggested that
would
>> help mitigate his behaviour in the eyes of the examining judges? Was
>> mention made of this fascistic flesh-crawling weirdo’s notorious
>> publication: *Follow the Fuehrer! - was his former teenage mistress
aware
>> of this too we wonder? It seems unlikely.
>>
>> There is nothing is more cringe-making, nothing more likely to make
one
>> lose one’s faith in human nature than an excusatory Jew who
justifies by
>> silence, palliates by pretermission or shrugs off by keeping stumn. So
of
>> all the members of this list who is it that (taking time out from
>> composing
>> his operatic doxology of praise) first blunders blindly into print to
>> defend this purulent infection on western philosophy and smother any
>> whiff
>> of criticism of this pathologic murderer of millions by proxy?
>>
>> Unbelievably it is a man who may well have lost relatives, friends,
>> friends
>> of friends “processed” in what Heidegger contemptuously
referred to as
>> *factory farms.* It is a strange irony of our times that the most
vicious
>> vindicator of a man who aspired to becoming Hitler’s Person
Philosopher*
>> is
>> a Jew who, because he is so besotted with the skinhead inanities,
>> fantasies
>> and infantilisms of some second-class Nazi sycophant turns himself
into
>> our
>> resident virtual Anti-Semite - that most loathsome form of all
>> Anti-Semites, by deliberately passing over, denying, making light of a
>> crackpot cuckoo - the most obvious and most dangerous and most
committed
>> of
>> its psychopaths
>> (he never apologised until his dying day) that some of the cruder
forms
>> of
>> so-called “philosophy” has not yet managed to root out.
>>
>> The philosopher of Nazism is not the only Nazi which Jung was involved
in
>> exposing - in 1943 he aided the Office of Strategic Services by
analysing
>> Nazi leaders for the United States.
>>
>> Jud.
>
>
>
> ——————————
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 06:38:17 EDT
> From: GEVANS613 at aol.com
> Subject: Jung on Martin Heidegger - Certainly
> To: heidegger at an-archos.com,
> analytical-indicant-theory at yahoogroup…,
> epistemology at yahoogroups.co, nominalism at yahoogroups.com
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”iso-8859-1″
>
> Bernard supplied this damning criticism of Heidegger by Karl Jung:
>
> C. G. Jung on Martin Heidegger.
> Heidegger’s modus philosophandi is neurotic through and through and
is
> ultimately rooted in his psychic crankiness. His kindred spirits, close or
> distant, are sitting in lunatic asylums, some as patients and some as
> psychiatrists
> on a philosophical rampage. For all its mistakes the nineteenth century
> deserves better than to have Heidegger counted as its ultimate
> representative.
> … for all its critical analysis philosophy has not yet managed to root
> out
> its psychopaths. What do we have psychiatric diagnosis for? That grizzler
> Kierkegaard also belongs in this gal?re. Philosophy has still to learn
> that it is
> made by human beings and depends to an alarming degree on their psychic
> constitution. In the critical philosophy of the future there will be a
> chapter on
> “The Psychopathology of Philosophy.” Hegel
> with presumption and vanity, Nietsche
> drips with outraged sexuality, and so on. There is no thinking qua
> thinking, at
> times it is a pisspot of unconscious devils, just like any other function
> that lays claim to hegemony. Often what is thought is less important than

> who
> thinks it. But this is assiduously overlooked. Neurosis addles the brains

> of
> every philosopher because he is at odds with himself. His philosophy is
> then
> nothing but a systemized struggle with his own uncertainty.
>
> Excuse these blasphemies! They flow from my hygienic propensities, because

> I
> hate to see so many young minds infected by Heidegger.
>
> C. G. Jung in a letter to Arnold K?nzli on February 28, 1943
> submitted by Bernard X Bovasso
>
> MichaelPret writes:
> Bernard, it might have been more appropriate had you asked explicitly
> whether the quote might have originated with Jung along with the quote
> rather than
> just quoting.
>
>
> Jud:
> Obviously the self-appointed straw-clutching excusatory naif and High
> Priest
> of the *Heidegger the Nazi Cult* - Saint Michael the Pretermitter’s
> pathetic hope is that Jung’s well known contempt for *the pyschic
crank*
> Heidegger is a fake. He would do well to read Bishop’s *Jung in
Context,*
> or to order
> the *C. G. Jung Letters, Volume 1 by Carl Gustav Jung* from his local
> library - that is if the gerontological centre of Britain - Sandwich,
> actually
> has a library, or is all the space reserved for old folk’s homes?
>
> *On the few occasions that Jung discusses Heidegger, his remarks are
> always
> highly negative. In a letter to Josef Meinerz of 3rd of July 1939, Jung
> accused Heidegger of “Juggling with words.” ( Jung. Letters 1.
p. 271)
> Then again
> in his letter to Arnold Kunzle of 13th Feb 1943 Jung contrasted
Kant’s
> long
> accepted philosophical terminology - “Even Kant for all his
critiques,
> constantly employs the concepts that were current in his century”
with
> another sort
> of criticism that only leads to “the mastery of complicated
banalities,
> the
> Platonic exemplar of which ” Jung jokingly added, “is embodied
for me in
> the
> philosopher Heidegger.” (Letters 1. p. 330.) And in his next letter
to
> Kunzle
> of 28th of Feb 1943, Jung went so far as to say that
“Heidegger’s
> philosophandi is neurotic through and through and is ultimately rooted in

> his psychic
> crankiness” (p. 133.) As Jung’s letters to Medard Boss of 27 June
1943,
> and 5th
> of Aug 1947 (Letters II. pp. XI - XV) and to Gerhard Zacharias 24th Aug
> 1953
> (Letters II. p. 121) show, Jung had a strong dislike of Existential
> psychology which used concepts derived from Heidegger.*
>
> Jung in Contexts: A Reader.
> By Paul Bishop Contributor Paul Bishop Published by Routledge, 1999
>
> also see:
>
> C. G. Jung Letters, Volume 1 by Carl Gustav Jung.
> Bollingen Series #0095: ISBN 0415205573, 9780415205573
>
> Compare this quite different source from Oldmeadow’s: Orientalism,
Racial
> Theory and the Allure of Fascism
>
> *Let us assemble a few now well-known facts, each of which, in isolation,
> m
> ay seem of little significance but which cumulatively suggest a
> problematic
> requiring the attention of anyone interested in our general subject. W. B..
> Yeats, Ezra Pound and T. S. Eliot (and, to confuse the mix, Richard Wagner

> and
> Madame Blavatsky) were not only keen students of the Orient but were all
> anti-Semitic, while Pound, notoriously, espoused the ideology of fascism.
> Mircea
> Eliade, Joseph Campbell and Georges Dum?zil, the doyen of Indo-European
> studies,
> were also anti-Semitic and were susceptible to the anti-modern appeal of
> extreme right wing political ideologies. A more overt and virulent form
> of
> “spiritualized” fascism can be found in the person and work of
the Italian
> orientalist Julius Evola. Martin Heidegger publicly and theatrically
> aligned
> himself with the Nazi regime in the early 30s, and became an unabashed
> propagandist
> for Hitler’s domestic and foreign policies. He was a Nazi informer
and
> betrayed several Jewish friends and colleagues. Carl Jung evinced some
> enthusiasm
> for Nazism in its early years, discerning in it a hope of spiritual
> regeneration of Europe; there are also more than a few traces of
> anti-Semitism in his
> writings. (Unlike Heidegger, Jung was later implacably opposed to
> Nazism.) As
> George Steiner has observed, the “alpine priesthood” of Eranos
was
> susceptible to a kind of conservative-romantic mysticism which was at
> least tinged
> with “F?hrer-politics.” (p. 375)*
>
> Oldmeadow. Harry Journeys East: 20th Century Western Encounters with
> Eastern
> Religious Traditions.
> (The Library of Perennial Philosophy)
>
> ————– next part ————–
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed…
> URL:
> http://an-archos.com/pipermail/heidegger…
>
> ——————————
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 07:14:59 -0400
> From: Joseph Polanik
> Subject: Re: I am Self-Aware - Implicit First Person in Heidegger
> To: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
>
> Cc: epistemology at yahoogroups.com, MoFPP at googlegroups.com,
> analytical-indicant-theory at yahoogroup…, descartes at yahoogroups.com
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I am Self-Aware - Implicit First Person in Heidegger
>
> [Joe]: Heidegger writes in the third person; so, most of the time, the
> text is one step removed from the experience of first-person
> self-awareness; and, consequently, someone reading the text would have
> to a self-reference (however implicitly). unless someone says ‘this
> applies to *me* how could the text influence him? nevertheless, this
> first person perspective can be easily reconstructed from the clues that
> Heidegger left. he writes:
>
> “Because Dasein has in each case mineness [Jemeinigkeit], one must
> always use a personal pronoun when one addresses it: ‘I am’,
‘you are’.”
> [BaT 68/42]
>
> [GCM]: What you say is true, but that actually gets into a question of
> what exactly *mineness* and *ownmost* are. Since you seem to have
> easy availability to the text and I do not, could you give not only
> specific but clear and evidential definitions of what *mineness* is.
> Your statement from Heidegger above, though perfectly correct, is a
> only relation of a word to a word. Descartes expression was a
> statement of experience, not a logical argument or equation of any
> sort and therefore as such perfectly acceptable — if extremely vague
> and incommunicable as experience by necessity. I do not remember
> Heidegger relating *mines* directly to experience but I am probably
> wrong.
>
> [Joe (new)]: Heidegger was not a model of clarity; but, I take
> ‘mineness’ and ‘ownmost’ as his ways of noting an
fundamental fact: that
> each stream of experiences is experienced as ‘my experience’ by
its
> experiencer.
>
> [GCM]: does what you say violate what Heidegger says about being-with
> and the very nature of language and therefore internal thought where an
> *Other* is logically implicit?
>
> [Joe (new)]: what does Heidegger say about being-with and the nature of
> language that might be challenged by a first-person translation of
> Heideggerian thinking?
>
> at this point, I see no conflict between acceptance of individuated
> experiencers (each with its own stream of experiences) and Heidegger’s
> commentary on the ‘they self’. in the analysis of the call of
> conscience, Heidegger seems to be saying that the viewpoints imposed by
> the ‘they’ on the child being raised within its society must be
> questioned. even if they are not then overthrown, this
> existing-here/experiencing-that has made them its own, has made them
> ‘mine’.
>
> Joe
>
>
> –
> Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
> first person. — H-N Castaneda
>
> @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
>  http://what-am-i.net
> @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
>
>
>
> ——————————
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:22:40 +0100
> From: “michaelP”
> Subject: [OT]: the list and jud
> To: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
>
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”ISO-8859-1″
>
> Jud, on observing the ensuing conflagration between us, Bernard sent this
> to
> this here list concerning his Jung ‘quote’, just now, before you
> ’strangely’
> omitted it from the below:
>
> “Hey, guys, before you lapse frantic. I also sent that Jung letter to
to a
> Jungian group in Texas called Sfitz, an online Jung page, because they
> published an article by a fellow Jungian who saw a great sympathy of
> understadning Between Jung and Heidegger. Most neo-Jungians are entirely
> sympathetic to the views of Heidegger. I sent the copy of the Jung letter
> to
> both the Heidegger group and the online Jung Page more *to find out if the
> Jung letter was authentic*. I have looked in most of Jung’s published
> works
> for any mention of Ontology and/or Heidegger and have found none.”
>
> [etc]
>
> * [my emphasis]
>
> And that is why I wrote *to Bernard*:
>
> “Bernard, it might have been more appropriate had you asked
explicitly
> whether the quote might have originated with Jung along with the quote
> rather than just quoting.”
>
> It was not to ‘protect’ Heidegger from criticism (as I have said
so many
> times, there are many philosophically sophisticated and damning critiques
> of
> Heidegger, many of which I have and take seriously, many of which I have
> supplied the references to without the slightest response that any of them
> had been read by you); that’s not my business, particularly when the
> criticism is simplistic crude hatred — that’s your problem, not mine.
My
> reaction to Bernard’s ‘quote’ was to the *entire spirit* of
it, not any
> particular arrow aimed at Heidegger (as was obvious from my actual
> response): explaining (rather, negating) brilliance (of thinkers such as
> Nietzsche, Kierkegaard , Hegel, etc) by accusation of pathology, neurosis,
> insanity, disease, etc.
>
> Your ‘considered’ response was to accuse me, a jew, of
anti-semitism “of
> the
> worst kind”. Over the past few weeks you have called me an
“arsehole”,
> accused me of being drunk and claimed I had “wasted your time for
years”;
> and now the anti-semitism gibes both with this episode and with my recent
> attempts to speak about my opera concerning the thinking of Heidegger (not
> the man himself, which might be a topic for someone else’s opera, but
*not
> mine*, a point you have consistently ignored in favour of accusing me of
> leaving out all those items of **your** tabloidal fetid imagination* –
> swastikas, leather shorts, death camps, gestapo, nudity, etc).
> Furthermore,
> you’ve added below that I am “High Priest of the *Heidegger the
Nazi
> Cult*”.
>
> This now amounts to a mountain of ad hom towards me (nevermind others) and
> is no doubt succeeding in its attempts to spoil my enjoyment of being a
> member of this list (supposedly consisting in philosophical discussions
> about the philosophy of Heidegger conducted by those interested, keen or
> curious, for one reason or another, in Heidegger’s philosophical
> thinking).
>
> For the life of me, I don’t know why you (want to) continue to be a
member
> of this list or why anyone else here tolerates your hastily nasty
> hatefilled
> presence on this list: you have your own AIT [!] list, the epistemology
> list, the nominalist list, etc, to discuss stuff of that kind with kindred
> others (which recently, you irritatingly keep forwarding to this list
> too),
> the philosophy course you attend, your encyclopedial website, etc.
>
> I think, after resisting this thought for the most part, that you are
> indeed
> a troll, and I’m going to ask Malcom to reconsider and review that
notion
> and perhaps to ban you from this list. He probably will decline to ban
> you,
> but it’s worth a try (what do others think?).
>
> Whatever your response (apart from the almost impossible to contemplate
> apology due in tons by now, not just to me but to the entire list), I
> shall
> not respond — I never want to read another word from you.
>
> michaelP
>
>
>
>> Bernard supplied this damning criticism of Heidegger by Karl Jung:
>>
>> C. G. Jung on Martin Heidegger.
>> Heidegger’s modus philosophandi is neurotic through and through
and is
>> ultimately rooted in his psychic crankiness. His kindred spirits,
close
>> or
>> distant, are sitting in lunatic asylums, some as patients and some as
>> psychiatrists on a philosophical rampage. For all its mistakes the
>> nineteenth century deserves better than to have Heidegger counted as
its
>> ultimate representative. … for all its critical analysis philosophy
has
>> not yet managed to root out its psychopaths. What do we have
psychiatric
>> diagnosis for? That grizzler Kierkegaard also belongs in this gal?re.
>> Philosophy has still to learn that it is made by human beings and
depends
>> to an alarming degree on their psychic constitution. In the critical
>> philosophy of the future there will be a chapter on “The
Psychopathology
>> of
>> Philosophy.” Hegel
> is fit to burst with presumption and vanity, Nietsche drips with
outraged
>> sexuality, and so on. There is no thinking qua thinking, at times it
is a
>> pisspot of unconscious devils, just like any other function that lays
>> claim
>> to hegemony. Often what is thought is less important than who thinks
it.
>> But this is assiduously overlooked. Neurosis addles the brains of
every
>> philosopher because he is at odds with himself. His philosophy is then
>> nothing but a systemized struggle with his own uncertainty.
>>
>> Excuse these blasphemies! They flow from my hygienic propensities,
>> because
>> I hate to see so many young minds infected by Heidegger.
>>
>> C. G. Jung in a letter to Arnold K?nzli on February 28, 1943
>> submitted by Bernard X Bovasso
>>
>> MichaelPret writes:
>> Bernard, it might have been more appropriate had you asked explicitly
>> whether the quote might have originated with Jung along with the quote
>> rather than just quoting.
>>
>>
>> Jud:
>> Obviously the self-appointed straw-clutching excusatory naif and High
>> Priest of the *Heidegger the Nazi Cult* - Saint Michael the
>> Pretermitter’s pathetic hope is that Jung’s well known
contempt for *the
>> pyschic crank* Heidegger is a fake. He would do well to read
Bishop’s
>> *Jung in Context,* or to order the *C. G. Jung Letters, Volume 1 by
Carl
>> Gustav Jung* from his local library - that is if the gerontological
>> centre of Britain - Sandwich, actually has a library, or is all the
>> space reserved for old folk’s homes?
>>
>> *On the few occasions that Jung discusses Heidegger, his remarks are
>> always
>> highly negative. In a letter to Josef Meinerz of 3rd of July 1939,
Jung
>> accused Heidegger of “Juggling with words.” ( Jung. Letters
1. p. 271)
>> Then
>> again in his letter to Arnold Kunzle of 13th Feb 1943 Jung contrasted
>> Kant’s long accepted philosophical terminology - “Even Kant
for all his
>> critiques, constantly employs the concepts that were current in his
>> century” with another sort of criticism that only leads to
“the mastery
>> of
>> complicated banalities, the Platonic exemplar of which ” Jung
jokingly
>> added, “is embodied for me in the philosopher Heidegger.”
(Letters 1. p.
>> 330.) And in his next letter to Kunzle of 28th of Feb 1943, Jung went
so
>> far as to say that “Heidegger’s philosophandi is neurotic
through and
>> through and is ultimately rooted in his psychic crankiness” (p.
133.) As
>> Jung’s letters to Medard Boss of 27 June 1943, and 5th of Aug 1947

>> (Letters
>> II. pp. XI - XV) and to Gerhard Zacharias 24th Aug 1953 (Letters II.
p.
>> 121) show, Jung had a strong dislike of Existential psychology which
used
>> concepts derived from Heidegger.*
>>
>> Jung in Contexts: A Reader.
>> By Paul Bishop Contributor Paul Bishop Published by Routledge, 1999
>>
>> also see:
>>
>> C. G. Jung Letters, Volume 1 by Carl Gustav Jung.
>> Bollingen Series #0095: ISBN 0415205573, 9780415205573
>>
>> Compare this quite different source from Oldmeadow’s:
Orientalism,
>> Racial
>> Theory and the Allure of Fascism
>>
>> *Let us assemble a few now well-known facts, each of which, in
isolation,
>> may seem of little significance but which cumulatively suggest a
>> problematic requiring the attention of anyone interested in our
general
>> subject. W. B. Yeats, Ezra Pound and T. S. Eliot (and, to confuse the
>> mix,
>> Richard Wagner and Madame Blavatsky) were not only keen students of
the
>> Orient but were all anti-Semitic, while Pound, notoriously, espoused
the
>> ideology of fascism. Mircea Eliade, Joseph Campbell and Georges
Dum?zil,
>> the doyen of Indo-European studies, were also anti-Semitic and were
>> susceptible to the anti-modern appeal of extreme right wing political
>> ideologies. A more overt and virulent form of
“spiritualized” fascism can
>> be found in the person and work of the Italian orientalist Julius
Evola.
>> Martin Heidegger publicly and theatrically aligned himself with the
Nazi
>> regime in the early 30s, and became an unabashed propagandist for
>> Hitler’s
>> domestic and foreign policies. He was a Nazi informer and betrayed
>> several
>> Jewish friends and colleagues. Carl Jung evinced some enthusiasm for
>> Nazism
>> in its early years, discerning in it a hope of spiritual regeneration
of
>> Europe; there are also more than a few traces of anti-Semitism in his
>> writings. (Unlike Heidegger, Jung was later implacably opposed to
>> Nazism.)
>> As George Steiner has observed, the “alpine priesthood” of
Eranos was
>> susceptible to a kind of conservative-romantic mysticism which was at
>> least
>> tinged with “F?hrer-politics.” (p. 375)*
>>
>> Oldmeadow. Harry Journeys East: 20th Century Western Encounters with
>> Eastern Religious Traditions.
>> (The Library of Perennial Philosophy)
>
>
>
> ——————————
>
> _______________________________________________
> heidegger mailing list
> heidegger at an-archos.com
> http://an-archos.com/mailman/listinfo/he…
>
>
> End of heidegger Digest, Vol 21, Issue 53
> *****************************************
>
>
> –
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1742 - Release Date: 23/10/2008

> 3:29 PM
>
>

Posted on Sunday, October 26th, 2008 at 6:02 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback