You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
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. Goldberg goes so far afield as