Fascinating interview. Tacey, a Christian by upbringing, won a prestigious prize and sought an intellectual mentorship with the very unchristian Hillman, but Hillman wasn't interested in chatting with Tacey, so Tacey became Hillman's unwilling patient; their work together helped Tacey with his father complex. I've just read Prof Tacey's essays on Hillman; they are brutal! I am familiar with Hillman's books and lectures, and I've read a lot of Jung, but I'm a casual reader. Tacey's assessment and critique of Hillman is substantial; it demands an evaluation beyond the scope of a casual reader. Would it be unreasonable to read between the lines and question Tacey's latent motivations? I wonder what scholars of Jung and Hillman make of Tacey's critique.
Poor is the pupil who does not surpass his master. (Leonardo da Vinci). The Fox and the Grapes is a fable by Aesop. It is about a fox who sees some grapes hanging high on a vine. He tries to reach the grapes, but he can't. Since he can't get them, he tells himself that the grapes are probably sour anyway. Hillman is a deep deep thinker on a high vine.
I love that around 30 min he tells of the editor who summarizes his essays as an Oedipal attack on his father figure. Oh man, what a perfect statement. And he still got annoyed by it. LOL :) - the editor just pulled the words out of my mouth. Tacey should've indeed went on (or back) to Eddinger. He didn't take the hint.
Wonderful interview~ I love Tacey's writings and was introduced to Hillman via them. Ironically, I encountered Peterson's Maps of Meaning lectures after Tacey suggested I cultivate The Work outside of a uni (I wrote to him hoping to be a potential supervisee, however Tacey pointed out that no Australian institutes offered Jungian options). Tacey is a scholar I read annually in some form. And I apply his techniques regularly with my Dreaming journal.
From Creative Loafing, Atlanta, Apr. 4, 1998: Interviewer: I'm curious to know what you think of David Tacey's book, Remaking Men. It's what I'd consider a well-reasoned critique of Jungian orthodoxy that remains completely faithful to Jung's spirit. It also includes a chapter about your analysis of Tacey. James HIllman: Really? No, I haven't read it. Now, talk about a savagely critical mind, David Tacey certainly has one.
I like Jordan Peterson, but I definitely have my critiques of his work and some of his obvious biases. It's vital that any student maintains a critical eye of their advisors.
I big fan of Hillman, and he is most important Jungian figure for me, but his hostility toward Christianity always baffled me for same reason as it did to Tacey. I've told myself that perhaps it's the form of Christianity of modern days as Hillman seems to be reactionary towards current (US) culture. Christianity is such a dominant factor. He often would write/speak about how literally american culture tends to take everything, which sort of fits into Protestant fear of being non-biblical. And also puritanical roots of US which Hillman often mentions. I don't think he attacked as much Christianity in it's old form: thou he mentions in one of his lectures that in the Bible dreams are usually sent by devil. My correction would be that this holds true for New Testament, but not for Old Testament in which it God who sends dreams. And he also said in one interview that we should dig our pagan roots more, so perhaps he was trying to get at that side of our psyche. Perhaps for example with Tacey he tried to unearth something beneath image of Jesus, something pagan, to show pagan side of Tacey's psyche. Christian imagery tends to be so overpowering for Christians, and it's often difficult path to trek because to fear of committing heresy. As a Lutherian i think i understand this, everything has to be biblical. Thou i'm sure Tacey has grilled Hillman enough to understand him much better than i can who has only listened and read his works.
Hi Antti, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughtful comment. I have heard that Hillman used to have a picture of Luther in his Kitchen... That did'nt make him much of a Lutheran though I am pretty sure that if he would have read him in-depth he could have appreciated him. I think there are analogues to be found between Hillman's writing on the (negative) Senex and Luther's theology of the cross.
I was in therapy for about 15 years. And when the moment was ripe my encounter with the unconscious was partially in Christian terms. I came from one of the most liberal denominations in the USA, the UCC which had a very anti-literal emphasis and also a Tillich inspiration, and even I was very neurotic when the ideation placed me in the same role as Christ. I literally was saying As I had the visions „But I am not Christ!“ One of the visions was the third temptation, and that hit the nail on the head. As Jesus refused politcal power, power over others. I saw this issue very profoundly. In one vision, the idea of the smiling Buddha became the theme, and in the last visions ideas of a goddess, I was actually dating a woman who could only be described as Cthonic. She was a good person, but an extreme extrovert, a drummer, and actually knew some world famous drummers and had an opposite temperament to my introverted personality, some how she conjured up a deep female goddess ideas that were a mix of positive and negative. I don’t think anyone can control the visions a person has when the get to the breaking point. Hillman unfortunately does not have the appreciation of Christianity. In the Gospel of John, the thesis is „I Jesus, am greater than Dionysus and Pythagoras.“ He actually performs the same tasks as both. Hillman is unaware of the embedded paganism within Christianity.
I can't view others perspectives ,but short casual study into Christianity and Paganism seems clearly embedded in Christian festivals and rituals in many different denominations ,Easter rabbit and Christmas tree ...symbols ,I would think Hillman being educated would be aware ,but who knows?it's organic
Una lettura davvero ristretta superficiale e totalmente priva di penetrazione psicologica, sia del lavoro di 'visione in trasparenza' di Hillman sul 'mito cristiano', che sul Puer. In quanto non addetta ai lavori, ma semplice lettrice di psicologia e conoscendo comunque il lavoro della Von Franz e anche quello di Hillman, posso dire che il lavoro di J. H sul Puer è risolutivo proprio del problema 'Puer' in quanto ne rispetta totalmente, convalidandola la funzione di connessione con lo Spirito ed è per questo che lo 'ri-immagina' in relazione al Padre invece che con la Grande Madre... La questione è piuttosto grave e seria, a mio avviso, in quanto da come si esprime emerge chiaramente che non ha colto minimamente il senso di una psicologia basata sul fondamento poetico della mente, da cui parte la psicologia di Hillman... E la questione di essere europei o americani è rilevante fino ad un certo punto, e lo dice un Italiana che ha il Vaticano in casa... Il modo in cui stiamo con la sofferenza e la PERCEPIAMO è influenzato ampiamente da 2 millenni di cristianesimo così come la nostra prospettiva sulla depressione (sempre e solo negativa) Che spreco di opportunità, aver avuto la fortuna di lavorare con Hillman e non averne minimamente colto l'essenza, ma non soltanto di lui, Hillman, ma di te stesso, perché è questo che il suo metodo insegna... C'è ne sarebbe ancora da dire per chiarire... Ma ci vorrebbe una ' "Eranos lectures" per dissodare tutti gli errori di pensiero di questa falsata interpretazione...
Fascinating interview.
Tacey, a Christian by upbringing, won a prestigious prize and sought an intellectual mentorship with the very unchristian Hillman, but Hillman wasn't interested in chatting with Tacey, so Tacey became Hillman's unwilling patient; their work together helped Tacey with his father complex.
I've just read Prof Tacey's essays on Hillman; they are brutal!
I am familiar with Hillman's books and lectures, and I've read a lot of Jung, but I'm a casual reader. Tacey's assessment and critique of Hillman is substantial; it demands an evaluation beyond the scope of a casual reader.
Would it be unreasonable to read between the lines and question Tacey's latent motivations? I wonder what scholars of Jung and Hillman make of Tacey's critique.
Poor is the pupil who does not surpass his master. (Leonardo da Vinci). The Fox and the Grapes is a fable by Aesop. It is about a fox who sees some grapes hanging high on a vine. He tries to reach the grapes, but he can't. Since he can't get them, he tells himself that the grapes are probably sour anyway. Hillman is a deep deep thinker on a high vine.
Oh, couldn't agree more.
I love that around 30 min he tells of the editor who summarizes his essays as an Oedipal attack on his father figure. Oh man, what a perfect statement. And he still got annoyed by it. LOL :) - the editor just pulled the words out of my mouth. Tacey should've indeed went on (or back) to Eddinger. He didn't take the hint.
Wonderful interview~ I love Tacey's writings and was introduced to Hillman via them. Ironically, I encountered Peterson's Maps of Meaning lectures after Tacey suggested I cultivate The Work outside of a uni (I wrote to him hoping to be a potential supervisee, however Tacey pointed out that no Australian institutes offered Jungian options). Tacey is a scholar I read annually in some form. And I apply his techniques regularly with my Dreaming journal.
Thank you for the feedback and for sharing this story of yours.
From Creative Loafing, Atlanta, Apr. 4, 1998:
Interviewer: I'm curious to know what you think of David Tacey's book, Remaking Men. It's what I'd consider a well-reasoned critique of Jungian orthodoxy that remains completely faithful to Jung's spirit. It also includes a chapter about your analysis of Tacey.
James HIllman: Really? No, I haven't read it. Now, talk about a savagely critical mind, David Tacey certainly has one.
How interesting. Thank you so much for sharing this.
I like Jordan Peterson, but I definitely have my critiques of his work and some of his obvious biases. It's vital that any student maintains a critical eye of their advisors.
I big fan of Hillman, and he is most important Jungian figure for me, but his hostility toward Christianity always baffled me for same reason as it did to Tacey. I've told myself that perhaps it's the form of Christianity of modern days as Hillman seems to be reactionary towards current (US) culture. Christianity is such a dominant factor.
He often would write/speak about how literally american culture tends to take everything, which sort of fits into Protestant fear of being non-biblical. And also puritanical roots of US which Hillman often mentions. I don't think he attacked as much Christianity in it's old form: thou he mentions in one of his lectures that in the Bible dreams are usually sent by devil. My correction would be that this holds true for New Testament, but not for Old Testament in which it God who sends dreams.
And he also said in one interview that we should dig our pagan roots more, so perhaps he was trying to get at that side of our psyche. Perhaps for example with Tacey he tried to unearth something beneath image of Jesus, something pagan, to show pagan side of Tacey's psyche. Christian imagery tends to be so overpowering for Christians, and it's often difficult path to trek because to fear of committing heresy. As a Lutherian i think i understand this, everything has to be biblical.
Thou i'm sure Tacey has grilled Hillman enough to understand him much better than i can who has only listened and read his works.
Hi Antti, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughtful comment. I have heard that Hillman used to have a picture of Luther in his Kitchen... That did'nt make him much of a Lutheran though I am pretty sure that if he would have read him in-depth he could have appreciated him. I think there are analogues to be found between Hillman's writing on the (negative) Senex and Luther's theology of the cross.
@@centerofthecross That is really interesting! I've never even dared to think that there might be connection between Luther and Hillman.
I was in therapy for about 15 years. And when the moment was ripe my encounter with the unconscious was partially in Christian terms. I came from one of the most liberal denominations in the USA, the UCC which had a very anti-literal emphasis and also a Tillich inspiration, and even I was very neurotic when the ideation placed me in the same role as Christ. I literally was saying As I had the visions „But I am not Christ!“
One of the visions was the third temptation, and that hit the nail on the head. As Jesus refused politcal power, power over others. I saw this issue very profoundly.
In one vision, the idea of the smiling Buddha became the theme, and in the last visions ideas of a goddess, I was actually dating a woman who could only be described as Cthonic. She was a good person, but an extreme extrovert, a drummer, and actually knew some world famous drummers and had an opposite temperament to my introverted personality, some how she conjured up a deep female goddess ideas that were a mix of positive and negative.
I don’t think anyone can control the visions a person has when the get to the breaking point.
Hillman unfortunately does not have the appreciation of Christianity. In the Gospel of John, the thesis is „I Jesus, am greater than Dionysus and Pythagoras.“ He actually performs the same tasks as both. Hillman is unaware of the embedded paganism within Christianity.
I can't view others perspectives ,but short casual study into Christianity and Paganism seems clearly embedded in Christian festivals and rituals in many different denominations ,Easter rabbit and Christmas tree ...symbols ,I would think Hillman being educated would be aware ,but who knows?it's organic
Well done, mate! Your Christian "prejudices" might well have threatened his Jewish ones.
Una lettura davvero ristretta superficiale e totalmente priva di penetrazione psicologica, sia del lavoro di 'visione in trasparenza' di Hillman sul 'mito cristiano', che sul Puer. In quanto non addetta ai lavori, ma semplice lettrice di psicologia e conoscendo comunque il lavoro della Von Franz e anche quello di Hillman, posso dire che il lavoro di J. H sul Puer è risolutivo proprio del problema 'Puer' in quanto ne rispetta totalmente, convalidandola la funzione di connessione con lo Spirito ed è per questo che lo 'ri-immagina' in relazione al Padre invece che con la Grande Madre... La questione è piuttosto grave e seria, a mio avviso, in quanto da come si esprime emerge chiaramente che non ha colto minimamente il senso di una psicologia basata sul fondamento poetico della mente, da cui parte la psicologia di Hillman... E la questione di essere europei o americani è rilevante fino ad un certo punto, e lo dice un Italiana che ha il Vaticano in casa... Il modo in cui stiamo con la sofferenza e la PERCEPIAMO è influenzato ampiamente da 2 millenni di cristianesimo così come la nostra prospettiva sulla depressione (sempre e solo negativa) Che spreco di opportunità, aver avuto la fortuna di lavorare con Hillman e non averne minimamente colto l'essenza, ma non soltanto di lui, Hillman, ma di te stesso, perché è questo che il suo metodo insegna... C'è ne sarebbe ancora da dire per chiarire... Ma ci vorrebbe una ' "Eranos lectures" per dissodare tutti gli errori di pensiero di questa falsata interpretazione...
a bit of stereotyping of americans going on here...