Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00504)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...> wrote:
> Hi Paul,Eldon and all
> To me the importance is how we act, not what books we read or don't
read.
> 
That's not an either/or IMO-- like saying what's important is
breathing, not eating. Both are necessary; right action and right
understanding are mutually supportive.
snip
> 
> I don't think there is such a thing as an 'inferior function' 
> 'chopping wood carrying water'
> 
When you phrase it that way, neither do I. Jung has certainly not
established the four functions as "things" separately observable-- nor
can introversion/extraversion, projection, etc. be considered as
scientific theories. Jungian psychology has *some* empirical support,
as with tests of the Myers-Briggs test, but it's mainly heuristic,
offering a way to interpret experience, rather than scientific, in the
sense of falsifiability, prediction, etc. I "believe in" Jungian
ideas, as also in astrology, as useful tools for understanding
experience. But cannot believe in them in the same way that one
believes in plate tectonics, for example.

Which brings up the vexed question of what kind and level of
"believing in" is appropriate for various theosophical and
Theosophical doctrines. The conflation of all such kinds and levels
of belief is fundamentalism.

Cheers,

Paul