Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sisharil t1_j7n1ooh wrote

... most academic writers, I would assume?

What is with this weird fawning devotion to Jung, of all people?

−5

Fragrant_Penalty_ OP t1_j7n50nx wrote

You must feel guilty of devotional thinking if your first reaction is to accuse others of it.

I’m pointing out a feature of Jung’s and asking if other authors share it. Care to share anything?

3

sisharil t1_j7n5bad wrote

>You must feel guilty of devotional thinking if your first reaction is to accuse others of it.

"I know you are but what am I???" Really. That's really your go-to response? Lol

Like I said. Look at the bibliography of any academic monograph, particularly in the social sciences. There will be reams and reams of references to books and articles read by the author.

That's what academic work is. Lots of reading.

−3

Fragrant_Penalty_ OP t1_j7n5pu5 wrote

Are you going to share any names or are you more interested in gatekeeping?

2

sisharil t1_j7n8azg wrote

"The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism" by Elie Halevy

"Pintupi Country, Pintupi Self" by Fred R Meyers

"A Society without Fathers or Husbands" by Cai Hua (in multiple languages)

"The Great Lakes of Africa" by Jean-Pierre Chretien has a 50-page bibliography

"Porcelain: A History from the Heart of Europe" by Suzanne L Marchand

"The Dawn of Everything" by David Graeber and David Wengrow has a 60 page bibliography, though admittedly that is two people (and it isn't actually an academic text, it's written for a general audience)

"A History of the Arab Peoples" by Albert Hourani

"Rituals of War: The Body and Violence in Mesopotamia" by Zainab Bahrani

I will confess I haven't read Aion but it is quite normal for academic texts to have extensive bibliographies, so unless there's something really unusual about it I'm not sure why you're making such a big deal about Jung doing what people who write academic books do.

1

Fragrant_Penalty_ OP t1_j7ng9r1 wrote

The variety of what I read is limited to what I get contracted to ghostwrite. Payout is based on supply and demand. There might be a high-demand for essays referencing Neitzche, but the supply of writers is way high, so the resulting price is meager compared to what I’d get for writing on Jung who is high-demand, but low supply.

It occurred to me I only read Jung for the financial incentive, and that’s what prompted to ask what other authors share this feature of his I enjoy.

I mean it sincerely, thank you for sharing these authors. My work circumstance has limited my reading variety, so I’m looking forward to researching these people 😌

3

sisharil t1_j7npjfj wrote

I see. My apologies for being rather dismissive, I didn't know where you were coming from on this. I will mention that those authors are all in the field of history and anthropology and archaeology, so they address somewhat specific knowledge bases.

I do encourage you to read at least the Dawn of Everything, which is written for a general audience. Or any of the rest that you found interesting!

1

autumnjager t1_j7n8tfr wrote

Odd thing to say.

1

sisharil t1_j7n8vxz wrote

Is it that odd to point out how bizarre it is to make a big deal about standard academic convention?

1

autumnjager t1_j7wwquu wrote

Have you read Jung? I've read many academic texts, and nothing compares to the incredible range and obscurity of the ancient texts he references, and in so many langauges. God knows how he found these books or was able to read them all. Even in the age of the internet I often can't find references. You also seem to have a snidey conceited tone toward Jung and his work.

1

sisharil t1_j7wzggh wrote

I consider love of Jung to be something of a red flag for rightwingers that are into the absolute bullshit that is Jordan Peterson-style pseudoscience and theorizing. This is admittedly perhaps unfair of me. But Jung (and Freud), pioneers as they were in their field, are fairly... how to put it... they aren't exactly up to date on modern psychoanalysis, with many of their ideas shown to be unscientific and flawed.

1

autumnjager t1_j7x145o wrote

Yes, it is unfair of you. Also Freud != Jung. I suggest you try the first section of psychology and alchemy. Jung documents the analysis of a subject via dreams. It's about as easy to read as Jung gets.

1

sisharil t1_j7x16az wrote

I don't really care about dream analysis, but thanks.

1