[Buddha-l] Buddhism and Psychology research

[Timothy Smith]

Dan,

Don't see anything new here, probably my fault.  I think the evidence on Jung is at best contradictory, you obviously
see him as a raging anti-semite.  We're in the present now, and in the present, were I sitting on the jury, I would
acquit Jung of these charges as have many others who've gone through the same evidence you site. 
It does seem to me, however, that you are far more attached to enhancing Freud's image than others here are to
embellishing, or de-tarnishing Jung's.  What was that about miscreants we like?




T
Timothy Smith
Office/Mobile 831.624.8138
Fax  831.659-5112
www.wheelwrightassoc.com







On Sep 4, 2010, at 5:26 AM, Dan Lusthaus wrote:

> Tim,
> 
>> That's why this is a strawman,
> 
> Actually a strawman is something false, full of imaginary flaws simply of 
> the accurser's imagination, that one falsely imputes to something in order 
> to easily knock it down, like knocking over a straw man. Jung's antisemitism 
> is not a strawman argument. His defenders have tried to ambiguate the 
> evidence. Predictable. Lamentable and dispicable.
> 
>> As I've said twice before, the literature on the controversy is 
>> voluminous.  You've obviously picked your favorite sources
>> and are now busily flogging them to the finish line you must imagine 
>> exists.
> 
> You can imagine that after having gone through the evidence, one must 
> necessarily reach an impasse instead of a conclusion. I don't. That's simply 
> a priori ambiguation.
> 
> I suppose if you ever serve on jury duty, if the case lasts more than a few 
> days, you will guarantee a hung jury.
> 
>> BTW what's so bad about dynamite?
> 
> it's so yesterday. Dirty bombs are the way to go these days.
> 
> Dan 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>