Re: capital punishment and innocence

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/29/01 6:16:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,

covert@... writes:

> Someone could reasonably come up with a law that stated: Reality

> is inversely proportional to what people think; therefore, it can not be

> consciously observed.

>

>

!!!!!! brilliant!

Alice O. Howell

Rosecroft

72 Beartown Mt. Road

Monterey, MA 01245 USA

Tel:

Fax:

" Look for the sacred in the commonplace! "

[Guest guest]

On this question of 10 trillion Bobs, I had a friend many years ago who had a

car called Half a Million Arthurs becxause it squeaked and groaned a lot and

he heard it one night and heard what it was actually saying: 'Arthur, Arthur,

Arthur...'

And, since we're also on the question of moments in time, I also thought it

might be germaine to note that the said essay was penned during a period of

immense political upheaval in the Germanophonic universe and might reflect

more a passing disenchantment than cannonical Law.

I was rather amused by Dan's dismissal of the accusation of reading too

much of his own interpretation into Jung by declaring that any ideas he might

have probably came from Jung... They don't, Dan. They come from your

interpretation - which, I might add, is exactly what was being questioned.

.... Unless, of course, you are claiming direct mind-to-mind transmission from

the Old Fool?

m

[Guest guest]

I step out of the shadows to proclaim:

it's not that it isn't necessarily correct or not,

it's that the concept of correctedness should be in

question.

You say: " are you

> suggesting that nobody's interpretation can be

> correct? If so, it hardly

> seems worthwhile for anyone to write. That said, I

> am always ready and

> willing to learn that my interpretation is wrong. "

--> it's always worthwhile to write, because we get

closer to the ideal that we consider correctedness to

be. correctedness is nothing, because " is " doesn't

actually exist at all. Just a word that we use to try

to bring correctedness to things, which nothing (in my

opinion) can have.

are any of you familiar with E-prime? (I'm sure quite

a few of you would be) -- wouldn't it make so much

more sense for us to try to frame any theoretical

arguments regarding these things with E-prime?

--> further to: Do you believe in the concept of the

" is of identity " ? do you believe things are things?

or just that we perceive things to be like things, and

sometimes these perceptions seem close to being

things? is anything actually something?

I'm hoping that I'm not being too rudimentry here.

d. Singletary

http://www.mp3.com/taylorsingletary

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

cloudhand@... wrote:

>

>

> I was rather amused by Dan's dismissal of the accusation of reading too

> much of his own interpretation into Jung by declaring that any ideas he might

> have probably came from Jung... They don't, Dan. They come from your

> interpretation - which, I might add, is exactly what was being questioned.

>

> ... Unless, of course, you are claiming direct mind-to-mind transmission from

> the Old Fool?

Not at all, Mike - I just read what he wrote and said. Sure, OK, my

ideas about Jung come from my interpretation of Jung - but are you

suggesting that my interpretation (or any interpretation) of a text

*must needs* be a matter of projection? That is, putting aside the

question of whether or not my interpretations are correct, are you

suggesting that nobody's interpretation can be correct? If so, it hardly

seems worthwhile for anyone to write. That said, I am always ready and

willing to learn that my interpretation is wrong.

Regards,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Dear Dear Dan,

Jung was not speaking of what " should be " , but what unconscious people

perpetrate.Natural==unconscious. The reason we try to become conscious

is to control the " natural " violence of natural man, or as Jung would

say unconscious man ( well, hardly conscious man.)

I cannot believe that you somehow think Jung is giving advice to us on

how to act, in the part you quoted.. Someone on the way to individuation

would have to deal with

his shadow before he went very far. You are talking pure shadow.

Primitive, human, natural shadow. All of us have to deal with our own

murderous rages, and thoughts, and hates, before we can go very far down

the road to individuation. No one, least of all me, who believes she is

capable of the worst crimes, as are all human beings, can be so full of

pride that he/she imagines she could not be in that criminal's place.

Blood lust is a natural reaction in animals and in the collective

unconscious, I have no doubt. But let's us not baptize it, bless it and

bring it into human, somewhat conscious society, as a good or even as a

necessary part of us.

To be the " natural " man is perhaps where we start, but it should not be

our end. That is why we take the journey. To bring to consciousness all

our hidden inclinations and thoughts.No own blames a lion for eating his

prey or protecting his young by killing. He is doing what nature allows.

We are supposedly thinking, feeling, somewhat conscious beings. Blood

lust , perhaps innate must be seen within for what it is, and then once

brought to consciousness, discarded.

No. I do not recognize within myself ,anymore, this bloodlust. But, by

damn I had it! I told my Swiss German teacher in 1944 ( I was 13) that

all Germans

over the age of 5 and under fifty should be shot. I got that lovely

notion from my mother for whom the Germans caused pain enough. I had

rages too, and committed every deadly sin I could try . That does not

mean that sooner or later, I would not finally see and become conscious

of those feelings.You have to recognize them first, then use whatever

means works to use that energy in a better way. That kind of behavior

in us, those emotions must be challenged once seen.

if it clashes with what one thinks one believes.and the

values one wants to own. Integrity demands that.

I am old enough and know myself well enough never to say " I could never

do that " Under enough stress we do not know what we would do, or low we

could sink.. But I can

say and it is true, the only expression of bloodlust in my life is a

good mystery story, and perhaps a good WW2 war movie..

I do not accept your excuse for being only the " natural " man. You cannot

go down into the pit again once you climb out without the will to do so.

You actively hold certain views. You cannot blame them on Jung either.It

is your decision to remain attached to some collective and personal

unconsciousness.

The whole point of making the world " better " is to help one person to

realize some degree of consciousness. That is the whole point. Violence

comes from our refusal to look within, to recognize our own shadows,

projections, anima/animus, and to continue allowing the unconscious to

erupt in us without any idea of where those violent feelings came from,

and therefore no ability to refuse allowing them their own life.

About Christ as symbol for the Self in the West. The harm of course

hinges in the " privatio bono " and the notion that all good comes from

G-d all evil from man. Each Xian will have to deal with that, and come

to an understanding of evil. As far as Jung and Xianity are concerned,

he analyzes all facets, sacraments, ritual and doctrine from his point

of view, added something, took away something, for example the Trinity

vs the Quaterinity, but he found the Myth compelling and too important a

part of Western culture to ignore it or condemn it in toto.( Dan, I can

almost quote you chapter and verse. This is why I took to Jung in the

first place, since he is one of the few psychologists who dealt with the

spiritual) If you read " Answer to Job, " and believe Jung is right on the

necessity of opposites, the problem dissolves.Otherwise you are left

with dualism.Each of us has to work out the dualism vs the whole ,for

herself, Xian as well as non Xian. Jung, like everyone of us, made his

decision on whether to be part of an organized religion practiced with

others or to go where he was led. We each have to make that choice for

ourselves, without doubting anyone elses judgment or choice.

A court has a right in our society to judge the guilt or innocence of

the accused. It has, in my opinion no right to make a final judgment on

the worth of an individual and sanctioning civil murder. Twelve men and

women are still twelve human beings, and the judge also judges provisionally.

I am never compelled to play G-d nowadays.. I have tried it and it never

did work.I don't think anyone else could have done it better. I just

failed to be the absolute. However much hubris we have, in the end we do

know how limited we are. Yes, sometimes we are forced to make difficult

decisions which affect the lives of others, and we do the best we can.

No sane human being convinces himself that he knows absolutely which is

the right way. We do what we must, but I hope we are aware that as

limited human beings, the final judgment on any action is not ours.

It is my opinion that Jung was a humble man, especially near the end. He

would not, I think have taken dignity away from any other human.

Dan, we are never going to agree. My whole outlook on life, the need to

change the world one person at a time, the dignity of each human being

and the evil of taking an other's life except in self defense, are

bedrock values. I found in Jung answers to " why' I behave as I do, and a

way to see others without the blinders of projection, not all the time,

but often.But, I had values before I met Jung, and many of those have

not changed, but also fit into his scheme. Others may not. The point is

digging into one's soul and trying to understand who one is, and why one

acts the way one does, and perhaps with time to learn to become more

conscious, less violent and more appreciative of the truths others have

that I do not. I am sure Jung's Imago Dei and mine are not the same.

Neither one of us is right or wrong. This is a lonely journey we are on,

and we must remain true to ourselves.We will always see only through

our own experiences.

You are certainly entitled to your interpretation of Jung. You read him

differently than I do, and we come from different places. Sometimes we

may agree, often we will not. Even the written word is open to different

understandings. In all honesty, I must admit, however that I think you

pick and chose how you interpret him, and what you concentrate on in

your own way.

Shalom, my friend Dan

Toni

Dan Watkins wrote:

>

> Dear Toni,

>

> You wrote:

>

> > Dan, I disagree completely that one cannot believe in the ethics of not

> > killing a human being, and following Jung.I hardly would say one can not

> > espouse Xian ideas and Jungian ones at the same time. That is totally

> > without merit, especially as Jung considered the Christ as a symbol of

> > the Self.

>

> Yes, as *a* symbol of the Self, the most powerful symbol of the Self in the

> West in our epoch. Even so, Jung is at pains to point out, the Christ symbol

> as presented by the churches is an incomplete symbol of man and the Self

> insofar as it takes insufficient account of both the feminine and of evil (see

> *Aion*, 320-321 and footnote # 68 to that chapter). Jung writes, " Thanks to

> the doctrine of the *privatio boni*, wholeness seemed guaranteed in the figure

> of Christ. One must, however, take evil rather more substantially when one

> meets it on the plane of empirical psychology. There it is simply the opposite

> of good.... For anyone who has a positive attitude towards Christianity the

> problem of the Antichrist is a hard nut to crack " (Aion, 75-77). Jung

> regularly praises Christianity, but points up its limitations equally often,

> it seems to me.

>

> >

> > An elitist in my book is someone who thinks human beings can be ranked

> > in some matters, not someone who thinks we should exterminate member of

> > the human race.

>

> The two are not mutually exclusive. One might rank so low as to warrant

> extermination.

>

> >

> >

> > I would hesitate Dan to make a final judgment about the value of

> > anyone's life.

>

> I wouldn't either - I don't say that such a decision should be made by me, but

> by a court.

>

> > I did not create them, and I do not have infinite

> > knowledge of them , so I will leave the final judgment to the creator of

> > life whoever or whatever IT IS.

>

> His management style appears to me to be rather " hands off, " and may leave

> something to be desired (for one thing, He's always way behind on His child

> support). It appears to be up to us, whether we like it or not.

>

> >

> >

> > Political systems, discussed by Jung or not,mostly say they believe in

> > the value of each human life. I don't want to discuss political systems.

> > I believe no human can have the final say on the worth of a human

> > being. To believe otherwise is hubris to the extreme. Who made you or

> > anyone else G-d.?

>

> Nobody made me G-d, but human beings at times are compelled to " play G-d, " if

> you like to put it that way, by default. For better or worse, we inmates find

> ourselves in charge of the asylum. It has been noted that Plato and Aristotle

> wrote about politics as though trying to bring order to a madhouse.

>

> >

> >

> > Human " justice " is just that. it is not a perfect system, but we must

> > use it to protect society. To protect, not to execute. Punishment which

> > gives the vengeance of human beings an expression is not synonymous with

> > murder. Separation from others to keep the others safe is punishment

> > enough. We are not here to execute vengeance on each other, but to

> > protect society. No more.

>

> So you assert, but are you sure? Jung seems to suggest that our needs go

> beyond that (see below).

>

> >

> > Who is ultimately responsible, who ultimately has virtue or not is not a

> > judgment we limited human beings can make. We would have to be much

> > better at knowing the enemy within, before we get rid of the enemy .

>

> >

> >

> > Why this blood lust, Dan?

>

> I posted the following quote yesterday, but it bears repeating:

>

> " The natural idea of punishment if a man has committed murder is to hang

> him, kill him; then we are satisfied. That is the only real theory of

> punishment, any other is nonsense. You see, when a man commits murder,

> he has the advantage of us, because we have all wanted to do that. Once,

> at least, in a moment of affect, everybody has wanted to murder his

> fellow man, but he could not because he was decent. And then there comes

> that hell of a fellow who dares, and why should he do it when *I*

> couldn't? We are all potential murderers. Of course it does not need to

> be a cowardly murder, it can be straightforward manslaughter. Our

> ancestors have universally been murderers - it was even a virtue to

> commit murder in that way - so it is innate in us; it is in our blood.

> But we have not been allowed to do it because it is immoral. Therefore

> we say rightly, if another man has committed murder, we also have a

> right to do it. But he is one and we are many, so we must do it in

> collectivity; we call it 'law': we elect one member of our society and

> give him a sword to hack off the criminal's head. Then we are all

> pleased; now his head has been cut off and we are highly satisfied. So

> everybody has got at least his sprinkling of blood for his own

> salvation. It gives people a fine feeling to have committed a certain

> amount of crime. That is the psychology of crime, and any other way is

> just a rationalization of this primitive fact.... The original idea was

> that putting to death should be a communion of the whole people, that

> they should all share in it: it was establishing a sort of connection

> between people through a common emotion. Since they have no such chance

> now, they must read detective stories, or go to the movies; they must be

> thrilled by ugly accounts of crime. Also they must at times be very

> enthusiastic about a war because they have seen too little killing. The

> psychology of killing is the psychology of the criminal, so there are

> even murderers who want to be put to death and are not satisfied if they

> are not. "

>

> CGJ, *Nietzsche Seminars*, March 13, 1935

>

> Why the blood lust? Because I am a human being, apparently, and that is human

> nature - at least if the above is correct. Why would you deny your own blood

> lust? Denying doesn't make it go away.

>

> >

> >

> > You read too much of your own ideas into Jung.

>

> In fact, many of my " own " ideas come from Jung. Jung has to a large degree

> shaped me.

>

> > You can parse sentences

> > all you like, but Jung was not opposed to Christianity or its ideals,

>

> He was not opposed to it, but he did not accept it. Which of his students was

> it that he lit into for returning to church?

>

> >

> > except that Xianity left no room for the shadow in the Imago-Dei.

>

> He made a number of other criticisms as well, but this by itself is no small

> failing.

>

> >

> > His political writings were his opinions about the current then

> > situation.

>

> But he expresses principles that are timeless, that transcend the particular.

> His statements about tyrants, for example, are not just statements about those

> particular tyrants, but about tyrants generally, and tyranny generally.

>

> > I nowhere remember his denial of human worth.

>

> It *does* seem that for Jung, even the criminal has his place, and hence his

> " value, " as in the passage above.

>

> Regards,

>

> Dan

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni,

Toni Priest wrote:

> Again Dan, I do not believe that his 1935 pronouncement on the

> universality of capital punishment stands today, considering the only

> other countries beside us or as we judge: " civilized " countries that

> make us of it are Iraq(and some other Muslim countries) and China.

> Furthermore, the Jung of 1935 watching Europe descend into hell is not

> the Jung of the 1950-60'.

There seems to be abroad an idea that Jung changed rather radically in the last

ten years of his life - unusual, but in the case of Jung, who knows? But what is

the evidence. Did Jung disavow his earlier philosophy of life (if, following

him, I can call it that)?

Did he make retractions? I know that as of about 1947 or so, he wrote that the

war had cured him of any excessive optimism regarding the human condition, esp.

the collective human condition (my paraphrase from memory).

>

> If however you would agree with him that " by putting the criminal to

> death we share his crime " we would at least be starting on the same

> page. That's the kicker, though and I doubt you consider capital

> punishment a crime.

Not being illegal, and assuming that it is carried out in accordance with the

law, it is by definition not a crime. I think that what Jung means is that we

share psychologically in the criminal's crime, and in a way that *is conducive

to, rather than destructive of, collective life*. It is a way of *discharging*

(if you'll pardon the Freud-type language) the impulse to crime by proxy, in a

way that draws the tribe together rather than pitting it against itself. In a

sense, the executed criminal fills the old role of a sacrifice - a role he has

chosen himself.

>

> If the idea is we sacrifice to the devil so he may have his due....well

> we would have to examine just how civilized we think we are. Perhaps we

> could make it a weekly ritual to watch someone die in the electric

> chair.

Can I have the pay-per-view rights? :-)

Seriously, as Jung points out in one of the passages I quoted, public execution

used to be the norm. It presumably had a salutary effect on the people. I think

it's probably a good idea, yes.

> Do we then pray to this devil too?

And ask him for what? To leave us alone? Unlike God our father, he is not

responsive to pleas - he wants tribute, sacrifice, just like the old gods. " Pay

me now, or pay me later, " that's his motto.

>

>

> What Jung was saying, I would think, that each of us has to confront the

> devil within. To give him his due is to acknowledge his space within

> each of it. To acknowledge ourselves as possible of evil, not to put it

> on someone else and then make a ritual of it.

Then why does he not say that? Seems simple enough, if that's what he meant.

>

> Of course " evil is a psychic reality. It is so in each one of us.Does it

> express itself always in the same way? no, I don't think so. I have

> enough shadow things to contend with.I do not have to accept those I

> have already brought to consciousness and gotten rid of I must be on

> guard though " ..

> It is possible, Dan, to become conscious of just how evil we could be,

> and having gained that truth, avoid the future practice of that

> particular evil.I confessed my earlier " blood lust " and I have repented

> of it.

<Sigh> But that's the very question, isn't it? Can we, by means of

" consciousness, " put ourselves " jenseits Bose? " Can men become angels? Is there

such a thing as a saint (I frankly doubt it, and when a 'saint " is presented to

me, I always look for his tail)? All of this apart from the question of whether

a *whole nation* could become saintly.

Regards,

Dan

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dan,

It amazes me that you and I can read Jung and translate him so

completely differently.

When Jung was speaking of " sharing his crime " , he was speaking of our

doing to him what he did to others. Putting someone to death is a crime,

whether or not it is lawful. We are guilty, Dan, individually and

collectively. Perhaps of that blood lust you spoke about.

My goodness, Dan, are you still in the dark ages or haven't you read

what Jung says happens when one watches evil.? It is certainly not

salutary. (Besides fear of punishment never kept anyone from committing

a crime...think of the pickpockets who plied their trade at public

executions at a time when stealing was a capital offense.)

Jung seriously believed that when we watch someone doing something evil,

especially violence, it affects our psyche as well as the actual person

involved. He was quite explicit on the infection that happens, the

psychic infection of just watching.

Yeh, Dan I am really drawn together with those folks who enjoy watching

someone get a lethal injection. Togetherness, is it? a feeling of

cohesiveness? Maybe in primitive man, but those who are attempting to

become conscious of their baser instincts and acknowledge them won't be

standing by to watch the state commit murder in their name.They remember

who could stand there instead.

NOw about Jung and good and evil inside man, have you read Aion? It is

full of the very thing you deny Jung saying.Almost the whole book deals

with good and evil, and the fact that each of us is composed of

opposites. It is the whole point. It is Job all over again. Our G-d

Image

is the Self. And therefore good and evil must both be there, since it is

a matter of how we dance that dance. Both reside in our psyches.

If you haven't read Aion and Edingers lectures on it, do. it will

underline this whole subject.See Aion ( CW 9ii) " Christ a symbol of the

soul " #123

In my opinion you cut the human race too much slack. We are responsible

for what is evil on this earth. The question of our being angels was put

to rest with Aquinas( and he believed in the privatio bono, even)

The reason becoming conscious is so difficult for us, is that we are not

angels. If we become more conscious we do not automatically become " good "

or angelic, just more human.

Again, the process of individuation is to make a person " whole " ,

" complete " " not " perfect "

Wouldn't it be lovely if we could blame it on something outside us, like

the devil? It comes from the same place goodness comes from also.

Can a man be saintly? If that means perfect, no, if you mean " whole "

yes. I would imagine it were possible but only if he

were individuated. Can a nation be saintly? Knowing what we know about

the collective, that would be a resounding NO, at least in this stage of

our development.

Most of us have trouble just trying to be human. We need to know

ourselves in order to make that happen. Where did saintliness come into

it? A man is a man is a man.Jung, believing as he does in the union of

opposites says " the individual may strive for perfection,but must

suffer from the opposite of his intentions for the sake of his completeness. "

We don't become god or the devil as long as we believe they reside

outside us.and we separate ourselves from them. The are then, the

objective (thank you For helping me phrase that correctly))

sources of good and evil. We must come back to finding these within

ourselves to realize, we " have met the enemy and he is us " A

statement Jung would endorse.

Toni

>

>

DaN WROTE:

> There seems to be abroad an idea that Jung changed rather radically in the

last

> ten years of his life - unusual, but in the case of Jung, who knows? But what

is

> the evidence. Did Jung disavow his earlier philosophy of life (if, following

> him, I can call it that)?

> Did he make retractions? I know that as of about 1947 or so, he wrote that the

> war had cured him of any excessive optimism regarding the human condition,

esp.

> the collective human condition (my paraphrase from memory).

>

> >TONI:

> > If however you would agree with him that " by putting the criminal to

> > death we share his crime " we would at least be starting on the same

> > page. That's the kicker, though and I doubt you consider capital

> > punishment a crime.

DAN

>

> Not being illegal, and assuming that it is carried out in accordance with the

> law, it is by definition not a crime. I think that what Jung means is that we

> share psychologically in the criminal's crime, and in a way that *is conducive

> to, rather than destructive of, collective life*. It is a way of *discharging*

> (if you'll pardon the Freud-type language) the impulse to crime by proxy, in a

> way that draws the tribe together rather than pitting it against itself. In a

> sense, the executed criminal fills the old role of a sacrifice - a role he has

> chosen himself.

> TONI

> >

> > If the idea is we sacrifice to the devil so he may have his due....well

> > we would have to examine just how civilized we think we are. Perhaps we

> > could make it a weekly ritual to watch someone die in the electric

> > chair.

> Seriously, as Jung points out in one of the passages I quoted, public

execution

> used to be the norm. It presumably had a salutary effect on the people. I

think

> it's probably a good idea, yes.

>

> > Do we then pray to this devil too?

>

> And ask him for what? To leave us alone? Unlike God our father, he is not

> responsive to pleas - he wants tribute, sacrifice, just like the old gods.

" Pay

> me now, or pay me later, " that's his motto.

>

>TONI

> >

> > What Jung was saying, I would think, that each of us has to confront the

> > devil within. To give him his due is to acknowledge his space within

> > each of it. To acknowledge ourselves as possible of evil, not to put it

> > on someone else and then make a ritual of it.

>DAN

> Then why does he not say that? Seems simple enough, if that's what he meant.

>

> TONI>

> > Of course " evil is a psychic reality. It is so in each one of us.Does it

> > express itself always in the same way? no, I don't think so. I have

> > enough shadow things to contend with.I do not have to accept those I

> > have already brought to consciousness and gotten rid of I must be on

> > guard though " ..

> > It is possible, Dan, to become conscious of just how evil we could be,

> > and having gained that truth, avoid the future practice of that

> > particular evil.I confessed my earlier " blood lust " and I have repented

> > of it.

> DAN,

> <Sigh> But that's the very question, isn't it? Can we, by means of

> " consciousness, " put ourselves " jenseits Bose? " Can men become angels? Is

there

> such a thing as a saint (I frankly doubt it, and when a 'saint " is presented

to

> me, I always look for his tail)? All of this apart from the question of

whether

> a *whole nation* could become saintly.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni,

We will never agree, as you say, so I won't go over too much old ground, but

can't

resist making a few points below.

Toni Priest wrote:

> Dan,

> It amazes me that you and I can read Jung and translate him so

> completely differently.

> When Jung was speaking of " sharing his crime " , he was speaking of our

> doing to him what he did to others. Putting someone to death is a crime,

> whether or not it is lawful.

Toni, will I have to start calling you Humpty Dumpty? Words have meaning. A

" crime " by

definition is an unlawful act (hence there can be, for example no " crime against

humanity, " since " humanity " as a whole is not subject to any one law).

> We are guilty, Dan, individually and

> collectively. Perhaps of that blood lust you spoke about.

>

> My goodness, Dan, are you still in the dark ages or haven't you read

> what Jung says happens when one watches evil.?

But Jung does not say that capital punishment is evil (you say that). Rather, he

says

that it is necessary for the collective.

> It is certainly not

> salutary. (Besides fear of punishment never kept anyone from committing

> a crime...think of the pickpockets who plied their trade at public

> executions at a time when stealing was a capital offense.)

How can we know this? Do we know the minds of all the potential pick-pockets,

yeggs

and murderers, past and present? What we know is that fear of punishment did not

dissuade *every* criminal - it doesn't follow that it didn't dissuade any.

>

> Yeh, Dan I am really drawn together with those folks who enjoy watching

> someone get a lethal injection. Togetherness, is it? a feeling of

> cohesiveness? Maybe in primitive man,

Mass man is primitive man, that is part of Jung's point. We all have the

potential for

primitivity. Further, many of us do not have much potential to beanything but

primitive - this is also part of Jung's point. Not everyone has virtues, says

Jung (in

so many words), but everyone has the baser caveman instincts. Hence the need for

management of the collective, itself necessarily rather primitive, by

correspondingly

primitive means. Individuality is " essentially different, " Jung says, from the

collective instincts (CW 6, 88). Never the twain shall meet. Yet, since man is

in part

a collective animal (and since, to repeat, many human beings are nothing but

collective animals), the needs of the collective must be met.

> but those who are attempting to

> become conscious of their baser instincts and acknowledge them won't be

> standing by to watch the state commit murder in their name.They remember

> who could stand there instead.

>

> NOw about Jung and good and evil inside man, have you read Aion? It is

> full of the very thing you deny Jung saying.Almost the whole book deals

> with good and evil, and the fact that each of us is composed of

> opposites. It is the whole point. It is Job all over again. Our G-d

> Image

> is the Self. And therefore good and evil must both be there, since it is

> a matter of how we dance that dance. Both reside in our psyches.

> If you haven't read Aion and Edingers lectures on it, do. it will

> underline this whole subject.See Aion ( CW 9ii) " Christ a symbol of the

> soul " #123

I have read Aion. Aion is about the individual, and looks at the problem from

that

perspective.

>

>

> In my opinion you cut the human race too much slack.

I have almost daily experience that reinforces my view that not too much can be

expected from many people. You might as well blame the dog for voiding on the

carpet

as hold many people truly responsible for their actions. At the same time, you

must

train the dog to go outside, and punish it if it doesn't.

> We are responsible

> for what is evil on this earth. The question of our being angels was put

> to rest with Aquinas( and he believed in the privatio bono, even)

> The reason becoming conscious is so difficult for us, is that we are not

> angels. If we become more conscious we do not automatically become " good "

> or angelic, just more human.

" Whatever the metaphysical position of the devil may be, in psychological

reality evil

is an effective, not to say menacing, limitation of goodness.... " (CGJ, CW 11,

253).

We can hardly be responsible for the existence of evil. We might be responsible

if we

fail to cope with it as a reality. Any plan to banish evil by means of universal

enlightenment or somesuch is destined to backfire: " The wolf in sheep's clothing

goes

about whispering that evil is really nothing but a misunderstanding of good and

an

effective instrument of progress.... (N)obody realizes what a poisoning this is

of

man's soul " (CGJ, CW 9 I, 189).

>

> Again, the process of individuation is to make a person " whole " ,

> " complete " " not " perfect "

>

> Wouldn't it be lovely if we could blame it on something outside us, like

> the devil? It comes from the same place goodness comes from also.

> Can a man be saintly? If that means perfect, no, if you mean " whole "

> yes. I would imagine it were possible but only if he

> were individuated. Can a nation be saintly? Knowing what we know about

> the collective, that would be a resounding NO, at least in this stage of

> our development.

God, and I was with you right up to the very end. I think you go astray with

that " at

least in this stage of development, " which betrays a belief in *human progress*.

I'm

sorry, but I think I've seen your tail.

>

>

> Most of us have trouble just trying to be human. We need to know

> ourselves in order to make that happen. Where did saintliness come into

> it? A man is a man is a man.Jung, believing as he does in the union of

> opposites says " the individual may strive for perfection,but must

> suffer from the opposite of his intentions for the sake of his completeness. "

>

> We don't become god or the devil as long as we believe they reside

> outside us.and we separate ourselves from them. The are then, the

> objective (thank you For helping me phrase that correctly))

> sources of good and evil. We must come back to finding these within

> ourselves to realize, we " have met the enemy and he is us " A

> statement Jung would endorse.

As long as the " we " and the " he " are not identified with the ego, then yes, I

agree

that Jung would endorse this. But we must then think consciously and

egoistically

about how to manage the enemy that is " us " with appropriate modes and orders.

For

better or worse, a primitive, instinctive tribal life is no longer possible for

us,

primarily due to the problem posed by technology. That ship has sailed. Our

last,

best hope appears to be the resuscitation of the " aristocratic ideal. " Of

course,

cloning and genetic may soon make the whole question moot - there won't be human

beings any more, and hence no need for concern about human nature.

Regards,

Dan

>

> Toni

> >

> >

> DaN WROTE:

> > There seems to be abroad an idea that Jung changed rather radically in the

last

> > ten years of his life - unusual, but in the case of Jung, who knows? But

what is

> > the evidence. Did Jung disavow his earlier philosophy of life (if, following

> > him, I can call it that)?

> > Did he make retractions? I know that as of about 1947 or so, he wrote that

the

> > war had cured him of any excessive optimism regarding the human condition,

esp.

> > the collective human condition (my paraphrase from memory).

> >

> > >TONI:

> > > If however you would agree with him that " by putting the criminal to

> > > death we share his crime " we would at least be starting on the same

> > > page. That's the kicker, though and I doubt you consider capital

> > > punishment a crime.

> DAN

> >

> > Not being illegal, and assuming that it is carried out in accordance with

the

> > law, it is by definition not a crime. I think that what Jung means is that

we

> > share psychologically in the criminal's crime, and in a way that *is

conducive

> > to, rather than destructive of, collective life*. It is a way of

*discharging*

> > (if you'll pardon the Freud-type language) the impulse to crime by proxy, in

a

> > way that draws the tribe together rather than pitting it against itself. In

a

> > sense, the executed criminal fills the old role of a sacrifice - a role he

has

> > chosen himself.

> > TONI

> > >

> > > If the idea is we sacrifice to the devil so he may have his due....well

> > > we would have to examine just how civilized we think we are. Perhaps we

> > > could make it a weekly ritual to watch someone die in the electric

> > > chair.

>

> > Seriously, as Jung points out in one of the passages I quoted, public

execution

> > used to be the norm. It presumably had a salutary effect on the people. I

think

> > it's probably a good idea, yes.

> >

> > > Do we then pray to this devil too?

> >

> > And ask him for what? To leave us alone? Unlike God our father, he is not

> > responsive to pleas - he wants tribute, sacrifice, just like the old gods.

" Pay

> > me now, or pay me later, " that's his motto.

> >

> >TONI

> > >

> > > What Jung was saying, I would think, that each of us has to confront the

> > > devil within. To give him his due is to acknowledge his space within

> > > each of it. To acknowledge ourselves as possible of evil, not to put it

> > > on someone else and then make a ritual of it.

> >DAN

> > Then why does he not say that? Seems simple enough, if that's what he meant.

> >

> > TONI>

> > > Of course " evil is a psychic reality. It is so in each one of us.Does it

> > > express itself always in the same way? no, I don't think so. I have

> > > enough shadow things to contend with.I do not have to accept those I

> > > have already brought to consciousness and gotten rid of I must be on

> > > guard though " ..

> > > It is possible, Dan, to become conscious of just how evil we could be,

> > > and having gained that truth, avoid the future practice of that

> > > particular evil.I confessed my earlier " blood lust " and I have repented

> > > of it.

> > DAN,

> > <Sigh> But that's the very question, isn't it? Can we, by means of

> > " consciousness, " put ourselves " jenseits Bose? " Can men become angels? Is

there

> > such a thing as a saint (I frankly doubt it, and when a 'saint " is presented

to

> > me, I always look for his tail)? All of this apart from the question of

whether

> > a *whole nation* could become saintly.

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dan

Is *this* the 'Jung' you are striving to protect from the encroaching muck of

any view of it except your own? Good Lord, man! - It's so smug and self-

satisfied, so absolutely locked up inside its own logics that I wonder that you

bother to protect it at all. In your position I would do anything I could to

destroy it, but perhaps that's actually what you are doing - smothering all life

in it in the straight-jacket of your interpretation of 'the word'.

I assure you, there are Jungs and Jungs and yours strikes as singularly 'Alt'

(not to mention 'kalt')...

I'll tell you what we'll do... We'll all agree that you're dead right; that's

exactly

what Jung was on about; how could we have been so silly as to believe that

there was more to this planet than kick-it-and-it-grunts? The universe and

human nature are foul and disgusting at root and at heart and it's only our

childish ignorance that makes us hope (in vain, need I add?) for a spark of

light. You're quite right. Absolutely.

And we confess, on top of this, to being utterly wrong. Life is the brittle joke

of a non-existent god and there is neither hope to it nor nobility. One

struggles on and then dies.

How could we have been so foolish?

However, to quote yourself, I won't go over too much old ground, but can't

resist making a few points below.

> Words have meaning. A " crime " by

> definition is an unlawful act (hence there can be, for example no " crime

against

> humanity, " since " humanity " as a whole is not subject to any one law).

*According to the Oxford English Dictionary (which I believe is still *some*

sort of standard), a crime is either an act (usually a grave offence) punishable

by law, OR an evil act, or even a sin. Hence your above contention is

complete and utter hogwash and - as far as I can ascertain - an intentional

crime against the sensibilities of what you imagine is your captive audience

here.

I can personally think of no reason for the above statement (which reminds

me singularly of Jean-Marie Le Pen's 'The Holocaust was just a detail of

history') except to upset and and jeer at others from your safe place in the

infinite knowledge of what Jung's message really is about. I can also tell you

that I find it singularly odious - to the extent of being utterly unacceptable,

in

fact.

> But Jung does not say that capital punishment is evil (you say that). Rather,

he says

> that it is necessary for the collective.

*Dan take a brick or a sharp pointed stick and kill something for god's sake!

See how many people you impress. Jung DOES say that capital punishment

is evil: he says it to anyone who is not stuck within the letter of the law.

YOU, of course, are not stuck, I know! - It's all the rest of us punters you're

protecting him from...

> > (Besides fear of punishment never kept anyone from committing

> > a crime...think of the pickpockets who plied their trade at public

> > executions at a time when stealing was a capital offense.)

>

> How can we know this? Do we know the minds of all the potential pick-pockets,

yeggs

> and murderers, past and present? What we know is that fear of punishment did

not

> dissuade *every* criminal - it doesn't follow that it didn't dissuade any.

*True.

However, if it really worked there would be no crime. But there IS crime - on

a scale so large as to be almost staggering and often in places that are

supposed to be the very 'dispensaries' of justice. Ergo, it doesn't work. Ergo,

your conclusion is as founded on supposition as you think Toni's is.

> Mass man is primitive man, that is part of Jung's point. We all have the

potential for

> primitivity. Further, many of us do not have much potential to be anything

but

> primitive - this is also part of Jung's point. Not everyone has virtues, says

Jung (in

> so many words), but everyone has the baser caveman instincts. Hence the need

for

> management of the collective, itself necessarily rather primitive, by

correspondingly

> primitive means. Individuality is " essentially different, " Jung says, from the

> collective instincts (CW 6, 88). Never the twain shall meet. Yet, since man is

in part

> a collective animal (and since, to repeat, many human beings are nothing but

> collective animals), the needs of the collective must be met.

*What more proof does one need, I ask you? Thank the gods for the elite!

.... However, I have never yet met a mass man - or woman for that matter.

Everyone *I* meet seems to be anything BUT mass: there's far more

sentiment of aloneness than there is of belonging. The essential difference

between man as a cypher and man as an attempt at living his/her own life is

not one of 'never the twian shall meet'. Au contraire! Since nothing on this

planet or off it steps outside the web of causality, everything is intimately

related at root. That they show different facets is in no wise surprising, but

just because one refuses to admit the trees because one's focus at the

moment is on 'forest' and not on 'root and branch' (to say nothing of the

burgeoning shoots of spring), this in no wise denies the fact that without

'trees', the word 'forest' is a non-sense.

Interesting, for example, that a forest is not a primitive tree, a pride of

lions

not a primitive lion, but you think Jung is saying that Man the Great

Unwashed is a primitive man. A city is a primitive house? A car park a

primitive car?

Maybe Jung deserves thinking rather than swallowing, don't you think?

> I have almost daily experience that reinforces my view that not too much can

be

> expected from many people. You might as well blame the dog for voiding on the

carpet

> as hold many people truly responsible for their actions. At the same time, you

must

> train the dog to go outside, and punish it if it doesn't.

*Dan, I will use this example again... There are those who came through the

Holocaust with a capital 'H' seeking nothing but revenge and filled with

hatred; there are those who came through seeking nothing but to get back to

the ordinary lives they had known before and to forget it as soon and as

much as possible; and there were those who came through it filled with love

for and wonder at - veritable compassion for - all sentient beings.

What you get is what you expect.

The well-known saying would have it that 'seeing is believing'. I tend more to

the opinion that what you see IS what you believe, and that you tend to see

very little else.

Of course, for those of us who have perfectly understood the nature of is

rather stupid and ultimately meaningless universe, the question of projection

and beliefs does not exist.

Or does it?

> > We are responsible

> > for what is evil on this earth. The question of our being angels was put

> > to rest with Aquinas( and he believed in the privatio bono, even)

> > The reason becoming conscious is so difficult for us, is that we are not

> > angels. If we become more conscious we do not automatically become " good "

> > or angelic, just more human.

>

> " Whatever the metaphysical position of the devil may be, in psychological

reality evil

> is an effective, not to say menacing, limitation of goodness.... " (CGJ, CW 11,

253).

> We can hardly be responsible for the existence of evil.

*I see. So what IS it, then, that 'limits good'? Who or what shall we blame?

Or is it just inherently 'there', a sort of innate fault like planned

obsolescence? Surely it's as clear to you as it is to me that Jung's

conclusion from this is exactly the opposite of the one you are suggesting?

Or let me put it another way: Go and stand in some natural environment, a

forest or a desert, a beach or park or your back yard even, and tell me where

the 'evil' in it is.

> Any plan to banish evil by means of universal

> enlightenment or somesuch is destined to backfire

*Granted.

And of course it therefore follows that one should abandon all effort, does it?

> " The wolf in sheep's clothing goes

> about whispering that evil is really nothing but a misunderstanding of good

and an

> effective instrument of progress.... (N)obody realizes what a poisoning this

is of

> man's soul " (CGJ, CW 9 I, 189).

*Not everyone who sides with - shall we call it 'the good' - imagines that " evil

is really nothing but a misunderstanding of good and an effective instrument

of progress " ... The view *was* fairly prevalent in the pre-War years in certain

Germanophone communities as Jung was writing the above comments,

however... And seems to be prevailing again in certain governmental circles

very voiciferous about and utterly convinced of their own righteousness, but

let us leave that for the moment...

> > Again, the process of individuation is to make a person " whole " ,

> > " complete " " not " perfect "

> >

> > Wouldn't it be lovely if we could blame it on something outside us, like

> > the devil? It comes from the same place goodness comes from also.

> > Can a man be saintly? If that means perfect, no, if you mean " whole "

> > yes. I would imagine it were possible but only if he

> > were individuated. Can a nation be saintly? Knowing what we know about

> > the collective, that would be a resounding NO, at least in this stage of

> > our development.

>

> God, and I was with you right up to the very end. I think you go astray with

that " at

> least in this stage of development, " which betrays a belief in *human

progress*. I'm

> sorry, but I think I've seen your tail.

*Of course 'individuation' has nothing to do with 'human progress' does it? I

think we've seen yours.

> > Most of us have trouble just trying to be human. We need to know

> > ourselves in order to make that happen. Where did saintliness come into

> > it? A man is a man is a man.Jung, believing as he does in the union of

> > opposites says " the individual may strive for perfection,but must

> > suffer from the opposite of his intentions for the sake of his

completeness. "

> >

> > We don't become god or the devil as long as we believe they reside

> > outside us.and we separate ourselves from them. The are then, the

> > objective (thank you For helping me phrase that correctly))

> > sources of good and evil. We must come back to finding these within

> > ourselves to realize, we " have met the enemy and he is us " A

> > statement Jung would endorse.

>

> As long as the " we " and the " he " are not identified with the ego, then yes, I

agree

> that Jung would endorse this.

*But not if 'he' were 'you'?

How sad!

> But we must then think consciously and egoistically

*These two words seem synonymous to you, Dan. There really is no way

out, then, is there?

> about how to manage the enemy that is " us " with appropriate modes and orders.

*Discipline applied from without almost invariably breaks down at some point

because not fully understood. Discipline from within also breaks down, of

course, but inasmuch as it has a vague idea of where its going can often

regenerate itself more readily.

> For

> better or worse, a primitive, instinctive tribal life is no longer possible

for us,

> primarily due to the problem posed by technology. That ship has sailed.

*I think you'll find that most people *do* live in an interlmocking series of

tribal setups of think-alikes and work-alikes as well as born-alikes.

I also think you'll find that primitive, instinctive tribes are far less

'primitive'

and 'instinctual' than you imagine, even especially the one's that are *called*

primitive and instinctive.

> Our last,

> best hope appears to be the resuscitation of the " aristocratic ideal. "

*By this do you mean 'noblesse oblige', or just that 'all folks is born equal,

but some folks is more equal than others'?

I wonder if you actuially learn anything from these discussions, or if you only

imagine you 'teach'. Also, if you learn, whether you learn anything other than

how stupid we all are and how misguided.

m

'Everything you know is wrong' - Firesign Theatre

[Guest guest]

Dan,

You and I should be put in a locked room until we come to understand our

own interpretation on the value of human life, the problem of evil and

Jung as a demi-god. Once you and I both understand our terms, we will

probably find irreconcilable differences.

Yes, words have a meaning. You have never done anything to the

government, to individual , to yourself that could be interpreted as a

" crime " No speeding,so taking something that does not belong to you, no

drinking under age? no illegal parking? Ok now let's take your conscious

mind. Never had an unlawful thought?

I, an Jung were not quibbling about legal interpretations. He was

pointing out that the murder of another human being was a moral crime,

although perfectly legal. He was also saying, with his understanding of

human nature, that all of are capable of the most serious actions

against the self or another, therefore we have no right to make a final

judgment which will wipe that person off the face of the earth.The state

cannot give something it does not have. It can keep society safe, but it

cannot destroy what it did not create morally, ethically and any other

way you want. I am not Humpty Dumpty, and I believe you realize that the

legal terminology was not my purpose. It simply does not matter in the

realm of moral law, or should I say , it does not apply to humane action.

What would happen to each of us, if we all got what we deserved? That is

why justice must be tempered by mercy, and is, in the Western Imago Dei

I dispute that Jung believed that capital punishment was necessary for

the collective. He was not planning to psychoanalyst the collective. He

spoke of the status quo in Europe at that time.

Jung believed that every man must start on a journey. Every man is an

individual as well as a member of a collective. Consciousness in not

necessarily equivalent with education. Every man has probably been awake

at night wondering about the meaning of life. A sociopath is not a

primitive. And while there are some primitives still around, they are

not the majority of the hoi poloi.

I am unable as a human being to consider other human beings " nothing but

collective animals. " Each of these " animals " has a Self and the

capability to become conscious.You again make the mistake of lumping

huge amounts of people into a group and then judge the group. Every

member of any group also is an individual. What makes you a judge of who

is a " collective animal " ? Being part of a collective is just one of the

functions of human beings.

There is no way for a human being, or all human beings to banish evil,

since it resides in us as does good. Since we all understand the theory

of opposites??? if you could ban evil, you would also have to ban good

from within. I am not sure where you get the idea that I think universal

enlightenment even if possible, would banish the ability to commit evil?

>From reading any of my posts you must realize that I long ago understood

that evil exists and is not just the absence of goo. I thought that

before I ever read Jung. Now, you are putting into the " privatio bono

side. You don't read what I say, Dan, just what you think I might have

said.Read my post. Evil exists. It exists within each human breast as

does good. It is not " out there " somewhere. You must take personal

responsibility for the evil in this world and not blame it on Satan, the

devil, demons or anything, any person outside of yourself.

" If we or he is not identified with the ego " you agree that we are both

good and bad?

" I have suggested calling the total personality, which though

present, cannot be fully known, the Self. The ego is, by definition

subordinated to the self and is related to it like a part to the

whole. " ....so the self acts upon the ego like an objective occurrence

which free will can do very little to alter.It is indeed well known

that the ego not only can do nothing against the self, .... "

Aion, " The Ego " #9

" " The somatic basis of the ego consists, then of conscious and

unconscious factors " (#4)

........( The ego) " in my experience one would do well not to

underestimate it's dependence on the unconscious. " #11

Now, what were you saying about evil and good not coming from the u ego???

As to the future of the human race, I am not infallible therefore I

refuse to make a definitive statement. I don't know. Why would we spend

so much time and energy to make people more conscious if that did not

result in a better world, long term?

Dan, You are driving me crazy with your hubris in assuming you can

categorize the human race, and make decisions on life and death. You are

a man just like the rest of us. It is not your personal responsibility

to " protect " the collective. Start with the individual who makes up this

" collective " and you will be doing your earth and your brother humans a

great deed.

Toni

Dan Watkins wrote:

>

> Dear Toni,

>

> We will never agree, as you say, so I won't go over too much old ground, but

can't

> resist making a few points below.

>

> Toni Priest wrote:

>

> > Dan,

> > It amazes me that you and I can read Jung and translate him so

> > completely differently.

> > When Jung was speaking of " sharing his crime " , he was speaking of our

> > doing to him what he did to others. Putting someone to death is a crime,

> > whether or not it is lawful.

>

> Toni, will I have to start calling you Humpty Dumpty? Words have meaning. A

" crime " by

> definition is an unlawful act (hence there can be, for example no " crime

against

> humanity, " since " humanity " as a whole is not subject to any one law).

> TONI

> > We are guilty, Dan, individually and

> > collectively. Perhaps of that blood lust you spoke about.

> >

> > My goodness, Dan, are you still in the dark ages or haven't you read

> > what Jung says happens when one watches evil.?

> DAN

> But Jung does not say that capital punishment is evil (you say that). Rather,

he says

> that it is necessary for the collective.

> TONI

> > It is certainly not

> > salutary. (Besides fear of punishment never kept anyone from committing

> > a crime...think of the pickpockets who plied their trade at public

> > executions at a time when stealing was a capital offense.)

> DAN

> How can we know this? Do we know the minds of all the potential pick-pockets,

yeggs

> and murderers, past and present? What we know is that fear of punishment did

not

> dissuade *every* criminal - it doesn't follow that it didn't dissuade any.

>

snip

DAN

> Mass man is primitive man, that is part of Jung's point. We all have the

potential for

> primitivity. Further, many of us do not have much potential to beanything but

> primitive - this is also part of Jung's point. Not everyone has virtues, says

Jung (in

> so many words), but everyone has the baser caveman instincts. Hence the need

for

> management of the collective, itself necessarily rather primitive, by

correspondingly

> primitive means. Individuality is " essentially different, " Jung says, from the

> collective instincts (CW 6, 88). Never the twain shall meet. Yet, since man is

in part

> a collective animal (and since, to repeat, many human beings are nothing but

> collective animals), the needs of the collective must be met.

> TONI

> > but those who are attempting to

> > become conscious of their baser instincts and acknowledge them won't be

> > standing by to watch the state commit murder in their name.They remember

> > who could stand there instead.

> >

> > NOw about Jung and good and evil inside man, have you read Aion? It is

> > full of the very thing you deny Jung saying.Almost the whole book deals

> > with good and evil, and the fact that each of us is composed of

> > opposites. It is the whole point. It is Job all over again. Our G-d

> > Image

> > is the Self. And therefore good and evil must both be there, since it is

> > a matter of how we dance that dance. Both reside in our psyches.

> > If you haven't read Aion and Edingers lectures on it, do. it will

> > underline this whole subject.See Aion ( CW 9ii) " Christ a symbol of the

> > soul " #123

>DAaN

> I have read Aion. Aion is about the individual, and looks at the problem from

that

> perspective.

>

> snip>

TONI

> > In my opinion you cut the human race too much slack.

>DAN

> I have almost daily experience that reinforces my view that not too much can

be

> expected from many people. You might as well blame the dog for voiding on the

carpet

> as hold many people truly responsible for their actions. At the same time, you

must

> train the dog to go outside, and punish it if it doesn't.

> TONI

> > We are responsible

> > for what is evil on this earth. The question of our being angels was put

> > to rest with Aquinas( and he believed in the privatio bono, even)

> > The reason becoming conscious is so difficult for us, is that we are not

> > angels. If we become more conscious we do not automatically become " good "

> > or angelic, just more human.

> DAN

> " Whatever the metaphysical position of the devil may be, in psychological

reality evil

> is an effective, not to say menacing, limitation of goodness.... " (CGJ, CW 11,

253).

> We can hardly be responsible for the existence of evil. We might be

responsible if we

> fail to cope with it as a reality. Any plan to banish evil by means of

universal

> enlightenment or somesuch is destined to backfire: " The wolf in sheep's

clothing goes

> about whispering that evil is really nothing but a misunderstanding of good

and an

> effective instrument of progress.... (N)obody realizes what a poisoning this

is of

> man's soul " (CGJ, CW 9 I, 189).

>DAN

> >

> > Again, the process of individuation is to make a person " whole " ,

> > " complete " " not " perfect "

> >

> > Wouldn't it be lovely if we could blame it on something outside us, like

> > the devil? It comes from the same place goodness comes from also.

> > Can a man be saintly? If that means perfect, no, if you mean " whole "

> > yes. I would imagine it were possible but only if he

> > were individuated. Can a nation be saintly? Knowing what we know about

> > the collective, that would be a resounding NO, at least in this stage of

> > our development.

> DAN

> God, and I was with you right up to the very end. I think you go astray with

that " at

> least in this stage of development, " which betrays a belief in *human

progress*. I'm

> sorry, but I think I've seen your tail.

>

> >TONI

> >

> > Most of us have trouble just trying to be human. We need to know

> > ourselves in order to make that happen. Where did saintliness come into

> > it? A man is a man is a man.Jung, believing as he does in the union of

> > opposites says " the individual may strive for perfection,but must

> > suffer from the opposite of his intentions for the sake of his

completeness. "

> >

> > We don't become god or the devil as long as we believe they reside

> > outside us.and we separate ourselves from them. The are then, the

> > objective (thank you For helping me phrase that correctly))

> > sources of good and evil. We must come back to finding these within

> > ourselves to realize, we " have met the enemy and he is us " A

> > statement Jung would endorse.

> DAN

> As long as the " we " and the " he " are not identified with the ego, then yes, I

agree

> that Jung would endorse this. But we must then think consciously and

egoistically

> about how to manage the enemy that is " us " with appropriate modes and orders.

For

> better or worse, a primitive, instinctive tribal life is no longer possible

for us,

> primarily due to the problem posed by technology. That ship has sailed. Our

last,

> best hope appears to be the resuscitation of the " aristocratic ideal. " Of

course,

> cloning and genetic may soon make the whole question moot - there won't be

human

> beings any more, and hence no need for concern about human nature.

>

> Regards,

>

> Dan

>

> >

> > Toni

> > >

> > >

> > DaN WROTE:

> > > There seems to be abroad an idea that Jung changed rather radically in the

last

> > > ten years of his life - unusual, but in the case of Jung, who knows? But

what is

> > > the evidence. Did Jung disavow his earlier philosophy of life (if,

following

> > > him, I can call it that)?

> > > Did he make retractions? I know that as of about 1947 or so, he wrote that

the

> > > war had cured him of any excessive optimism regarding the human condition,

esp.

> > > the collective human condition (my paraphrase from memory).

> > >

> > > >TONI:

> > > > If however you would agree with him that " by putting the criminal to

> > > > death we share his crime " we would at least be starting on the same

> > > > page. That's the kicker, though and I doubt you consider capital

> > > > punishment a crime.

> > DAN

> > >

> > > Not being illegal, and assuming that it is carried out in accordance with

the

> > > law, it is by definition not a crime. I think that what Jung means is that

we

> > > share psychologically in the criminal's crime, and in a way that *is

conducive

> > > to, rather than destructive of, collective life*. It is a way of

*discharging*

> > > (if you'll pardon the Freud-type language) the impulse to crime by proxy,

in a

> > > way that draws the tribe together rather than pitting it against itself.

In a

> > > sense, the executed criminal fills the old role of a sacrifice - a role he

has

> > > chosen himself.

> > > TONI

> > > >

> > > > If the idea is we sacrifice to the devil so he may have his due....well

> > > > we would have to examine just how civilized we think we are. Perhaps we

> > > > could make it a weekly ritual to watch someone die in the electric

> > > > chair.

> >

> > > Seriously, as Jung points out in one of the passages I quoted, public

execution

> > > used to be the norm. It presumably had a salutary effect on the people. I

think

> > > it's probably a good idea, yes.

> > >

> > > > Do we then pray to this devil too?

> > >

> > > And ask him for what? To leave us alone? Unlike God our father, he is not

> > > responsive to pleas - he wants tribute, sacrifice, just like the old gods.

" Pay

> > > me now, or pay me later, " that's his motto.

> > >

> > >TONI

> > > >

> > > > What Jung was saying, I would think, that each of us has to confront the

> > > > devil within. To give him his due is to acknowledge his space within

> > > > each of it. To acknowledge ourselves as possible of evil, not to put it

> > > > on someone else and then make a ritual of it.

> > >DAN

> > > Then why does he not say that? Seems simple enough, if that's what he

meant.

> > >

> > > TONI>

> > > > Of course " evil is a psychic reality. It is so in each one of us.Does it

> > > > express itself always in the same way? no, I don't think so. I have

> > > > enough shadow things to contend with.I do not have to accept those I

> > > > have already brought to consciousness and gotten rid of I must be on

> > > > guard though " ..

> > > > It is possible, Dan, to become conscious of just how evil we could be,

> > > > and having gained that truth, avoid the future practice of that

> > > > particular evil.I confessed my earlier " blood lust " and I have repented

> > > > of it.

> > > DAN,

> > > <Sigh> But that's the very question, isn't it? Can we, by means of

> > > " consciousness, " put ourselves " jenseits Bose? " Can men become angels? Is

there

> > > such a thing as a saint (I frankly doubt it, and when a 'saint " is

presented to

> > > me, I always look for his tail)? All of this apart from the question of

whether

> > > a *whole nation* could become saintly.

> > >

> >

> >

>

> -