Thanks for the paper.
I only have a little time this morning, but I would like to ask about your sense of the online list serve, which you suggest should be used to “to build the group consciousness” and “to forge consensus regarding critical questions of shared research.”
It’s hard to know how to take those statements, or what you mean to suggest. Building consensus is obviously important in certain fields — molecular biology, for instance — but it’s notoriously absent in the humanities and social sciences. And in psychology, the trend has been in other direction for a century: Not the developing of consensus but the creation of more schools of thought, each disagreeing with each other. I myself understand this disagreement, or strife, to be both annoying and creative. Paradoxically, it’s often the lack of consensus that so often cracks us open, revealing the hard-to-see!
But I suspect I am partly missing your point. What would your kind of consensus look like? What would be its purpose? And (perhaps more to the point) how do you understand “group consciousness” in an organization like ours, which is really many communities (professors, analysts, professionals, all of them with their different readings of Jung)?
Thanks and Best Wishes,
Associate Professor, Northern New Mexico University