Talk:Adam McLean

Footnotes

I'm clearly too much of a hack to figure out how to make the footnotes show up at the bottom of the page. McLean has published the four texts I added in the second paragraph.

Conflicts with Jung

for some reason, there are two references here, A single book with no page number, and a grandpa. This is not going to work at all. Some serious cleanup needs to be done.

One particular line caught my attention:

" The more he read the original documents the more he realised that these conflicted with and in no way confirmed the speculations of esotericists, Jungians and the popular writers on such subjects of the late 20th century. "

I have studied Jung quite a lot, so I had some invested interest in this comment. I looked up what i could about what Adam Mclean had to say about Jung outside of this article (because of the poor sourcing), and I found a particular comment he made in an article about an alchemical text known as the Rosarium philosophorum, which Jung happened to studied as well. Mcleans views on Jungs interpretation of this text totally contradicts the above statement.

" The Rosarium, because of its interweaving of soul and physical alchemy, was of particular interest to the psychologist Carl G. Jung, who perhaps quoted from it in his writings upon Alchemy more than any other single text. Jung, indeed, wrote an essay on the Rosarium series of illustrations under the title 'Psychology of the Transference' which is included in Volume 16 of his collected works, and this provides us with a most valuable foundation upon which to construct an interpretation. Jung, however, only shows us 11 of the 20 illustrations. Furthermore, he suggests that figures he labels 5 and 5a (Rosarium illustrations 5 and 11) are alternative versions of the same figure, whereas on examining the full series of 20 illustrations we find this untenable. Perhaps Jung did not have access to a complete edition of the book, but that as often happens over the centuries, some of these illustrations had been removed from his copy. At any rate, Jung's interpretation is based upon seeing the illustrations as 10 stages, whereas as we have seen there are 20. Indeed, if we read again Jung's analysis of the Rosarium, with a consciousness of the existence of the extended series of 20 illustrations, we will find a further level of integration of the masculine and feminine facets of the soul, which does not contradict Jung's thesis, but amplifies and extends it. "

Because the author of this article did not link his statement to any source, and all opinions i can find of Mclean on Jung are contradictory to the article, i'm deleting this particular section relating to Jung and the 'esotericists'.

ProductofSociety (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I see your problem - in fact Maclean admits in various places that he has changed his views on alchemy over the decades, and the article you link to was published in 1980 and is therefore out of date on his personal views. However I don't see much point in sticking this sort of thing all over a wikipedia article.Calcinations (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Bad wording

• "caused John Granger to name" The sentence containing this is poorly written. John Granger made an evaluation of something of his own free well. No person or thing "caused" this. Please rewrite, the word "caused" brings up visions of some sort of coercion. Yworo (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Adjusted this. Better? Car Henkel (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Much better, shorter and directly to the point. Yworo (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)