<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Autobiography on George&#39;s Blog</title>
    <link>https://blog.georgefabish.com/tags/autobiography/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Autobiography on George&#39;s Blog</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-US</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://blog.georgefabish.com/tags/autobiography/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Memories, Dreams, Reflections</title>
      <link>https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/memories-dreams-reflections/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:32:42 -0500</pubDate>
      <guid>https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/memories-dreams-reflections/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A collaborative autobiography by the man the myth the legend C.G. Jung. As an additional note, after reading this, I then listened to one of the &amp;ldquo;Very short introduction&amp;rdquo; books on Jung which was largely unnecessary after reading this book except that it put a little more meat on the bones of his theories.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Thoughts&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is difficult to review books sometimes because books have so many different uses. Some books are for fun, some are works of art, others are descriptive. So should you rate on how much you enjoyed a book? How well it was written? I think I prefer to review a book on how well it did what it set out to do, and this book did really well. Jung&amp;rsquo;s memory of his life is incredible. From his ability to recall a dream he had when he was three, to his structured accounts of his various travels, one thing this book did was made me realize how little of my life I could retell if I was forced to. There is no way I could discuss all the ideas this book brought up, so I&amp;rsquo;ll just give a few impressions. The first one is that if Jung had been born a couple hundred years early, or in a different part of the world, he most definitely would have become a shaman. His unique psyche revealed things to him that I think most people would never be able to experience. The second thing I noticed was that the parallels between priests and psychologists also include the fact that when it comes to both, your mileage may vary. When it comes to allowing myself to be psychoanalyzed, it seems like I would want an extended character reference&amp;hellip;. an autobiography perhaps?
People/C.G. Jung&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
