1. dgold says: #
    I love most of what you write, but this article is far beneath your own level. To take but one salient example: “Undaunted, Heer goes on to misunderstand Jordan Peterson’s description of the archetypal masculine and feminine and accuses Peterson equating this with men and women when it is clear that Peterson is using these terms as Jung did: symbolically.” Except, that’s not even remotely clear from what Peterson says. It’s clear from some of what he says, but not remotely all, such as “The idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory.”
    → Reply
    1. Colin Walker says: #
      I had considered adding a comment but wanted the quote to stand alone. I probably should have. I didn’t read this piece in the context of Heer, or Peterson, or even the authors, but as a celebration of Jung. What I took from it (rather than what was likely intended) was a defence of Jung, of thinking different, and not conforming to the rules - rules are usually made to benefit the select few which is why they seek so strongly to enforce them. The lyricism of this explanation of myth spoke to me through the nonsense of people making it about them rather than the ideas.
      → Reply
  2. dgold says: #
    I’m sorry Colin, that’s clear from what you think originally wrote. I have gotten this charlatan’s (JBP) nonsense coming at me from all directions this week. It has been clarifying in establishing who I need not bother paying attention to, so I guess that’s good.
    → Reply
→ Conversation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.