Currently writing a blog post about how the scientific validity of Deleuzian philosophy is corroborated by Jordan Peterson's papers on Latent Inhibition. They were both interested in the question: How is creation possible? And they both come to the same conclusions...
-
-
Sure, obviously lots doesn't fit! But with respect to navigating the psychological mechanics of creativity they converge. I will show.
-
No doubt you will also highlight the glaring divergences in HOW they are "navigating the psychological mechanics of creativity".
-
If your going to do this at least look at what D&G wrote on Jung, in paragraph in the 1730 plateau on what becoming is defiantly not: "metamorphosis" and "analogical representations".This is "creativity" relevant because.....pic.twitter.com/MJoVHaRLCn
-
I just read this and I don't see what you're trying to tell me. He calls Bachelard's book a fine book.
-
I don't know if your being facetious but they are obviously patting him on the head, I think this becomes clear reading the rest of the chapter.
-
It's not they they think Jung is exactly trash, (or perhaps they like him for it) they certainly don't miss an opportunity to stick it to Freud calling Jung "profounder",
-
but I think an understanding of "creativity" from a Jungian perspective has got to be severally limited for D&G: difference is contained in analogies, all we can really do is realise archetypes, the virtual is highly colonised if you will.
-
D&G are indeed better situated in a critical post-jungian lineage, whereas Peterson’s jungianism is as orthodox and conservative as it gets (although I never got the feeling Peterson has anything more than a superficial understanding of Jung).
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.