MarkTodd

As a personal devotee of the time-travel subgenre, I love the way this article was not only fun to read but also insightful about the interaction between literary/cinematic creators and their audiences. My favorite insight in this article was how these works of art allow us as readers and viewers to imaginatively travel beyond the arrow of time imposed by our acquiescence to Einsteinian relativity and live, for the duration of the artistic moment, in some alternate time. In that sense, which this article alludes to, we break those bindings of space-time laws to experience greater lessons to be learned by a wider spectrum of human experience. Time-travel *is* possible, if only through our imaginations, and the trappings of logistics are sometimes express while others times merely implied. If the story’s well told, our desire to participate in these fanciful excursions allows us to forgive and surrender to our willing suspension of disbelief in a way that doesn’t differ whether the story is set in the past, the future, or some alternating combination along the continuum.

Thank you for an entertaining and thought-provoking article about the way humanity overcomes, for now, time-bound realities. Imaginative experience feels no less real (we need but notice the rate of our own heartbeat or the increased infusion of adrenaline brought about by a well-executed story) for these “made-up” stories to transport is to other times.

Thanks for this provocative (in the best sense of the word) article. When I read the clever title, it made me laugh even if I what I really wanted to do was cry. And thank you for the thorough footnotes — easy to fact-check and assess the credibility of your sources.

I somehow doubt The Donald and Pink will ultimately reach the same conclusions. Nor would the former’s base ever stop to consider the cogent parallels you so aptly weave into your excellent article.

In the meantime, I’m not holding my breath that Trump’s folly will become anything other than a symbolic as well as a literal barrier to addressing the issues that cause “having a say” frustrations, even one brick at a time.

An intriguing article, and I really like the perspective of considering the correlation of depth psychology to quantum physics, and I think Jung would have approved of recent scientific efforts to validate the still debated phenomenon of quantum entanglement. But it must be said that Jung seemed more interested in the “observer effect” (forgive the double-entendre to physics) of paranormal phenomena as opposed to to the reality of the paranormal, whatever that is. I recall his monogram on “Flying Saucers,” in which he focused less on the objectivity of reported sightings and more on how the widespread reports give rise to a discussion of perception relating to the mandala as a universal projection from the Collective Unconscious. I know he reported a variety of personal paranormal experiences in his letters, but I think he was less interested in promoting New Age interpretations as much as he hoped to encourage dialogue about how such encounters reflect the individuation of the human psyche. That said, your article was stimulating and got me thinking again about Jung’s contributions to larger questions of what it means to be human. I’m saddened that late twentieth-century pyschologists have tended to cold-shoulder this iconoclastic thinker. Fortunately, he survives in philosophical discussions such as those you present in your article.