JSNYC
Thank you, rosebud_a320! This looks interesting and it got put on the "to buy" list.rosebud_a320 said:
I think this is a common "problem" in this genre, and thus a pertinent disclaimer. However, the forefront of science (and math) itself is filled with more irrational theory than rational fact, so to some extent it is unavoidable. But I really cringe when I read an author that tries to state they know what they are talking about (scientifically), when they obviously don't.hukes said:
However, in the end, none of us really knows what we are talking about, we are all exploring, and all proven facts are really just collectively accepted theories anyway.This is difficult to answer without going directly to Jung because, and this is something that has amazed me, (in my opinion) no one has really appended anything (substantial) to Jung's works. (Except David Keirsey, and Myers and Briggs.) This link contains a bunch of (free) articles to recent Jungian thought:daphne said:
http://www.cgjungpage.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=section&id=2&Itemid=40
If you want to read about Jung, but not get bogged down in his dense "Collected Works", you can try C. G. Jung Speaking (I haven't read all of this yet, but what I have read has been interesting):
http://www.amazon.com/C-G-Jung-Spea...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283792499&sr=1-1
