22-03-2010, 10:06 AM
(This post was last modified: 22-03-2010, 10:41 AM by David Guyatt.)
I have read Adrian Mack's posts this weekend and am not impressed. I find his style unnecessarily combative and repetitive and I conclude they are also designedly divisive.
It seems to me to be one man's campaign designed to diminish Jim Fetzer for reasons that aren't entirely clear. Jim may be right in saying it is projection. It might be more than that. It might just be one man's frustration. Who knows. What I think I do know is that it is unreasonable in its intensity, and that that suggests deeper matters.
But the volume is too high, too screeching, too intense. I think Mr. Mack should set up his own blog focusing on what he regards as the shortfalls of Jim Fetzer, and see how that fares -- rather than continue his endless repetitions here to a ready made audience.
I am also going to add one further comment. The list of researchers Mr. Mack referenced includes as examples of paragons of research - and there are several top class ones included, some of whom I know personally - there is at least one who I also knew well, who I was involved with and who I knew for a fact was not in the least bit self moderating, who was so self serving and self promotional and who made such basic errors in accuracy and judgement, that I stopped all involvement with him.
This, I would suggest, highlights the often fundamental differences between people who read others research and then feel able to comment decisively upon it - when they really can't (it is at best a largely uninformed opinion), as opposed to people who get down and do it. One side is theoretical and at a distance and the other is dirty hands practical.
It seems to me to be one man's campaign designed to diminish Jim Fetzer for reasons that aren't entirely clear. Jim may be right in saying it is projection. It might be more than that. It might just be one man's frustration. Who knows. What I think I do know is that it is unreasonable in its intensity, and that that suggests deeper matters.
But the volume is too high, too screeching, too intense. I think Mr. Mack should set up his own blog focusing on what he regards as the shortfalls of Jim Fetzer, and see how that fares -- rather than continue his endless repetitions here to a ready made audience.
I am also going to add one further comment. The list of researchers Mr. Mack referenced includes as examples of paragons of research - and there are several top class ones included, some of whom I know personally - there is at least one who I also knew well, who I was involved with and who I knew for a fact was not in the least bit self moderating, who was so self serving and self promotional and who made such basic errors in accuracy and judgement, that I stopped all involvement with him.
This, I would suggest, highlights the often fundamental differences between people who read others research and then feel able to comment decisively upon it - when they really can't (it is at best a largely uninformed opinion), as opposed to people who get down and do it. One side is theoretical and at a distance and the other is dirty hands practical.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14