Speaking of Which...

[Limit]

*laughs* I would argue that to the fast food generation, Jung would seem archaic! Now if you regularly read stuff from earlier works of literature ala Homer, no he doesn't seem archaic.

Well, it might also because I warmed up for Jung by reading his lectures first, rather than his books. Got me geared for reading his texts. XD

 

[Limit]

[MENTION=3465]Limit[/MENTION] INFJs prefer sugar over vinegar, sweetness. We won't hear anything you are saying, & will probably do the exact opposite just to spite you. I love you, though. Don't hate me.

LOL. I keep getting told this XD

Could you let me borrow some of your sugar please?

 

[Arsal]

Don

 

[Peppermint]

Uh, no, he doesn't really need to start from Jung, I didn't either and my theoretical framework is quite fine thankyouverymuch. If someone wants to know something, they'll get their way around it.

Anynway, Jung is really a handful to learn from UNLESS you're prepared to sit on and digest his symbolism for ages to synthesise anything useful. It's also not for people with short attention spans.

@saru, if you really want to give Jung a shot, I highly recommend the Jung lexicon by Daryl Sharp.

C. G. Jung died in 1961, without ever having presented a systematic summary of his
psychology. For the past thirty years his ideas have been explained, explored and
amplified by thousands of others, with varying results.
Jung Lexicon takes the reader to the source. It was designed for those seeking an
understanding of relevant terms and concepts as they were used by Jung himself. There
are choice extracts from Jung's Collected Works, but no references to other writers.
Jung Lexicon is not a critique or a defence of Jung's thoughts, but a guide to its richness
and an illustration of the broad scope and interrelationship of his interests.
Informed by a close reading of Jung's major writings, Jung Lexicon contains a
comprehensive overview of the basic principles of Jungian psychology. The implications
and practical application of Jung's ideas are well covered by other volumes in this series.

http://www.innercitybooks.net/pdf/books/junglexicon.pdf

 

[Nixie]

Jung makes my T go wild and I love that but I can also state that his words are difficult. I didn't mind Naomi Quenk's stuff. I would say that it would be up to [MENTION=3156]saru[/MENTION]; to find worth in what he reads anyway.

 

[Limit]

I would recommend starting with those books because they're easier to get into, and then working backwards to Jung. Leaping directly into Jung's texts and lectures could be overwhelming to a newcomer.

That

 

[Limit]

Uh, no, he doesn't really need to start from Jung, I didn't either and my theoretical framework is quite fine thankyouverymuch. If someone wants to know something, they'll get their way around it.

Anynway, Jung is really a handful to learn from UNLESS you're prepared to sit on and digest his symbolism for ages to synthesise anything useful. It's also not for people with short attention spans.

@saru, if you really want to give Jung a shot, I highly recommend the Jung lexicon by Daryl Sharp.

http://www.innercitybooks.net/pdf/books/junglexicon.pdf

Nobody stated “need”

I stated should.

Again, you should use things like the Lexicon as Secondary material.

The point is, I came into typology where there was NOBODY seriously educated in typology, so I was fed horrible information for months.

If someone had said, “Hey, you should hang out on these forums and learn, be part of the community, etc. but you should ignore 99% of the content and pick up *This book*” then I wouldn’t have wasted several months learning and cleaning through misconceptions.

It’s similar to building a house. You can try it on your own. Build a piece of the roof here, build a wall here, etc. If your point is to BUILD a house and not dick around, then wouldn’t you prefer if someone came along and showed you exactly how to build the house? Why waste the time?

I bet that contractor would tell you to have a good foundation too.......

 

[InvisibleJim]

I would recommend starting with those books because they're easier to get into, and then working backwards to Jung. Leaping directly into Jung's texts and lectures could be overwhelming to a newcomer.

I couldn't agree more. One does not start learning mathematics by considering complex conjugates and fourier transforms. One starts with the most accessible aspects - adding, substracting etc.

Similarly MBTI is a good place to start because it is simple and accessible.

It takes significant time for most people to discombobulate Jung, never mind being able to draw the correct parallels between all of the different interpretations starting at the cognitive functions Jung laid out and working to new, more modern Lenore, Beebe, Keirsey and Socionics interpretations of the same ideas and principles. These all have their relevance and place; each of these is much more accessible to the modern reader than picking up a book wrote in the 1930's.

It's pretty clear to me that the most important thing one can do is bring a creative and interpretative mind to the problem, eventually, you can reconcile everything regardless of the start point, but deciding to choose the most difficult route does not make the answer any better than the other routes and can often be a major handicap to the learner because of the limited understanding that imposing such unnecessary limits of comprehensibility.

A limited understanding working in a limited thinking space constantly deferring will simply become stagnant and is ultimately outmatched as they do not especially understand the theory, but merely regurgitate by rote. This is the difference between a master painter and someone who has decided it is a great idea to attempt to paint what they have seen someone else paint whilst claiming to be a master painter.

 

[Limit]

I couldn't agree more. One does not start learning mathematics by considering complex conjugates and fourier transforms. One starts with the most accessible aspects - adding, substracting etc.

Similarly MBTI is accessible because it is simple and accessible.

It takes significant time for most people to discombobulate Jung, never mind being able to draw the correct parallels between all of the different interpretations starting at the cognitive functions Jung laid out and working to new, more modern Lenore, Beebe, Keirsey and Socionics interpretations of the same ideas and principles. These all have their relevance and place; each of these is much more accessible to the modern reader than picking up a book wrote in the 1930's.

It's pretty clear to me that the most important thing one can do is bring a creative and interpretative mind to the problem, eventually, you can reconcile everything regardless of the start point, but deciding to choose the most difficult route does not make the answer any better than the other routes and can often be a major handicap to the learner because of the limited understanding that imposing such unnecessary limits of comprehensibility.

A limited understanding working in a limited thinking space constantly deferring will simply become stagnant and is ultimately outmatched as they do not especially understand the theory, but merely regurgitate by rote. This is the difference between a master painter and someone who has decided it is a great idea to attempt to paint what they have seen someone else paint whilst claiming to be a master painter.

I agree to a point.

His lectures, especially the Tavistock lectures, are an incredibly easy read for a beginner.

I have also recommended the basic Analytical Psychology books to people on PersonalityNation and they have enjoyed them. Finding them easy to read and enlightening.