Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To zoom in or out on PEP-Web…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

Are you having difficulty reading an article due its font size? In order to make the content on PEP-Web larger (zoom in), press Ctrl (on Windows) or ⌘Command (on the Mac) and the plus sign (+). Press Ctrl (on Windows) or ⌘Command (on the Mac) and the minus sign (-) to make the content smaller (zoom out). To go back to 100% size (normal size), press Ctrl (⌘Command on the Mac) + 0 (the number 0).

Another way on Windows: Hold the Ctrl key and scroll the mouse wheel up or down to zoom in and out (respectively) of the webpage. Laptop users may use two fingers and separate them or bring them together while pressing the mouse track pad.

Safari users: You can also improve the readability of you browser when using Safari, with the Reader Mode: Go to PEP-Web. Right-click the URL box and select Settings for This Website, or go to Safari > Settings for This Website. A large pop-up will appear underneath the URL box. Look for the header that reads, “When visiting this website.” If you want Reader mode to always work on this site, check the box for “Use Reader when available.”

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Slochower, H. (1981). The Jungian Archetype: Reductionism Upwards: Comment on Dr. Goldberg's Discussion. Am. Imago, 38(1):57-60.

(1981). American Imago, 38(1):57-60

The Jungian Archetype: Reductionism Upwards: Comment on Dr. Goldberg's Discussion Related Papers

Harry Slochower

Dr. Goldberg's paper is a welcome contribution on several grounds. To begin with, of the several Jungian scholars who were invited to send critical comment, Dr. Goldberg was the only one to respond. Furthermore, his is a graceful presentation, carried by a rhythm akin to religious inspiration. For these reasons, I wish his paper had greater bearing on the topic under discussion: Jung's secret confrontations with Freud and the extent to which his drawing of Yahweh in Answer to Job applies to Freud.

In his paper, Dr. Goldberg pays homage to the Jungian archetype as something like a First Principle or First Cause. This is, of course, acceptable from a Jungian perspective. What I was not prepared for was a discussion that nearly reads as though my paper did not exist, that not only ducks the topic, but in effect rejects its validity insofar as it proposes to examine the Jung-Freud relationship in terms of the concrete and personal contact between the two men. Dr. Goldberg's comments do not as much as hint that what I am concerned with is to understand the individual human pressures which operated between these two giants, their warm, at times, passionate involvements with each other. Indeed, in part, his paper gives the impression that my chief aim was to attack Jung. In any case, he ignores or brushes aside nearly the entire body of my paper. Instead of addressing himself to the content, he condemns its alleged “reductionist” methodology. As an alternative, his paper urges a kind of “upward” methodology of universals, such as the collective unconscious, the trans personal, the archetype. Thus, the autobiographical Memories and the personally charged symbolic Answer to Job are viewed as “complementary descriptions of modern man's experiences and interpretations of the archetype of God.” Dr.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2020, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.