to offer a satisfactory explanation that makes sense of life. That, for Jung, is the true quality of a theory. And it had to have a heuristic value in order to be whole. If it failed to be heuristic it would be one-sided. And for Jung, no matter how true a one-sided viewpoint is, it remains incomplete. Furthermore in the same debate with Bennet, Jung argued that it isn’t good enough to argue that psychic facts should be analogous to chemical or physical proof. How one proves something has to take into account the discipline that they are dealing with. Hence Jung argued “the question ought to be formulated: what is physical, biological, psychological, legal and philosophical evidence?” (Jung, C, in Shamdasani, S, 2003, p99). So Jung argued that there was an Anglo-Saxon bias on what was deemed to be scientific, again referring to physics and chemistry. Moreover, “psyche is the mother of all our attempts to understand Nature, but in contradistinction to all others it tries to understand itself by itself, a great disadvantage in one way and an equally great prerogative in the other!” (ibid)
7: Douglas, C, in Eisendrath, P. Y, & Dawson, T, 1997, p19
8: Douglas, C, in Eisendrath, P. Y & Dawson, T, 1997, p27
9: Douglas, C, in Eisendrath, P. Y & Dawson, T, 1997, p19
10: Jung, C, 1995, p87
11: Douglas, C, in Eisendrath, P. Y & Dawson, T, 1997, p21
12: ibid
13: ibid
14: Jung said this about all ideas, fearingthat otherwise they would become dogmatic. For example, he said it about Christianity; see Jung, C, 1977, p736,
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29