This is a bit of a mish-mash of things, but since I haven't updated in a week, I figured anything would suffice:
The intimate nature of their relationship aside, it was never going to work from the start; they really came from dramatically different schools and had radically different philosophies... all things they tried to put aside, and did for a time to their mutual benefit. It's a lame comparison, but Freud and Jung are basically Parcells and Belichick in a lot of ways (of course Parcells and Belichick didn't have such a personal friendship). The older and younger football coaches came together for a common cause and worked extremely well together, until Belichick came to resent Parcells's ever looming shadow (as well as the cruel way Parcells sometimes treated him), and eventually Belichick would stun the league by turning down the chance to be Parcells' successor (i.e. puppet) with the Jets in 2000. Of course, unlike Freud and Jung, Parcells and Belichick apparently became good friends at last in recent years. After 1913 Freud and Jung would never see one another again. Freud died in 1939.
Yes, I worked in an NFL comparison to describe the Freud-Jung relationship, but I feel it's pretty apt. Besides, I couldn't use it in class here. No one knows who the fuck Parcells or Belichick are.
***
The sun sets at about a quarter to four now.
***
There's a lecturers strike across the UK tomorrow- I don't know the exact details, but I suppose it's just to fight the gradual trend towards privatization that you're seeing here both in education and healthcare. My AM class is cancelled, but will still have the 3PM.
Last week's Wednesday morning seminar was about personality types. I knew more than the visiting lecturer about the subject, but the presentation of things (such as how the undeveloped, shadow side of the personality can infect the developed side if repressed) was done in a neat, clinical way. Still...
The course is too easy for me right now. I don't mean that in a self-righteous, boastful way. It has little to do with intelligence. I don't feel challenged enough- yet. Hopefully with the essays and MA thesis, that will change. I think it has a lot to do with academics of this sort today: focus on the superficial imagery rather than any in-depth discussion of theory. No monolithic center, but rather a dispersal.
I left biology at Rutgers because I couldn't find God there, but he sure as hell ain't with the Jungians either.
Of course, I don't think any academic discipline will hold that answer. They just won't. As one of my best friends said earlier, the answer is in my writing.
Very true.
***
I did meet with one professor last week who has shown interest in my MA Thesis idea (philosophy of Jung vs Spinoza). He's a really good guy and gave a lot of insight. Of greater import, his wife is from Philly. There is another guy here, a Freudian, who is from U. Delaware. Let's just say the Delaware Valley is well represented here at University of Essex. As it should be.
***
You know, I've only become friendly with one British guy here, a guy in his early thirties who is doing a doctorate on Jung and philosophy (broadly speaking). Very, very smart man. Have had many good conversations with him, as well as a round of golf. For the most part, the British, as the New Jersey couple from Edison that I spent Thanksgiving with noted (was a great time, I stayed for hours), stick to their own cliques here and are not overly open to the international population on campus. This is very true, though I'm sure it wasn't very different at Rutgers. Cliques are cliques.
Reminds of the time when the Holy Cross High School golf coach (and English extraordinaire) Mr. Tosto said he had it with that "Fucking junior clique of Langan, Dunleavey, and Amice." Ah, memories.
***
15 days till home.
No comments:
Post a Comment