I apologize. I'm coming across as critical and getting defensive. It's just that I think there is wisdom and knowledge that you have which you could impart better on others. That's all.
Fair enough. *extends hand to shake, but refuses any tongue action.*
The reason I held back knowledge for the last year has recently been removed from the forum. Food for thought.
This comment of yours is spot on:
Edit: Oh and as far as Jung's stuff goes, while insightful, I find it painful to get through. The man didn't know the meaning of the word "concise". This book is simple and pragmatic.
Frankly, I do not recommend people read Jung's original work. I read it, and I wanted to stab the guy. Those of us who were masochistic enough to read it all, can help others to understand it. But we must not think that Jung was some type of God. He was just a man, a man whom should be questioned like any other man. And that is why I prefer to use his work as nothing more than a springboard. We can't stay back in 1921 and think that nothing new has been learned. What a travesty that would be! Jung's type descriptions are so severe, they actually read like caricatures, rather than real people.
This is 2010, not the 1920's. So I applaud anyone who dares to ask, "Did Jung really know what the hell he was talking about?" It's a crucial question! So while some people in this forum used to think they "knew Jung better than anyone," if they were really smart, they would know that's nothing to brag about. It's merely knowledge, that was the result of what one man saw when he viewed people through his own personal lens. Can you imagine what photographs would look like if we were allowed to use only one type of lens, aperture, and shutter speed? The same applies to people.
Bringing in new models, and new ways of thinking to impart a deeper understanding is where my interests have always been, and always will be.
This is why I cringe when anything new is posted and certain individuals obsessed with MBTI feel compelled to immediately scream out correlations, failing to see that maybe, just maybe, they don't always correlate and more importantly, they don't have to.