Guest guest Posted February 18, 2003 Report Share Posted February 18, 2003 Dear , You wrote: > Dan, all, > > Thanks for your reply. You write, > > >Of course. That young boys with money in their pockets might want to > >buy records glorifying misogyny, cop-killing, and > >god-knows-what-else is not news > >to me. My point is that the entertainment industry should not sell > >it to them - and if it does sell it to them, it loses any moral > >authority it might > >have. > > This makes sense. You'd put them out of business; fine. I didn't say that I would put them out of business. But it would surely be remarkable if economic activity were the one sphere of human action that did not need to be ruled. > Rectitude and > purity of principle would make for a radical market landscape. I didn't say anything about " purity, " either. Nobody expects purity in political life. I think we could settle for a bit of decency. > > Theocracy? Benevolent fascism? Hey, tell me about the success of > aristocratic philosophers in the sphere of political economies over > the course of civilized history? Good? Good for them? Good for the > masses? Successful? Non-existent? The medieval economy was hardly non-existent. Successful? I think so. Good? Relatively. Good for the people? Yes. I know that now we can't get there from here, but I think a better job could be done ruling what we have. > > > Of course we might extend your principle here to include all immoral > entities which peddle in some way destructive stuff, and then go on > to moralize in some way. If you would go this far I would agree with > you that such entities and persons have no moral authority and are > hypocritical in any case. In fact, I can think of several such > entities peddling immorality in the guise of morality right now. > > Off with their heads? Yes? No? No - I just want some good legislation. And it's true that government must make some compromise with vice. Prohibition didn't work. The " drug war " is fairly stupid. But it doesn't follow that we must give up altogether - and the control of poetry is far more important, imo, than the control of (for example) substance abuse, anyway, because its capacity for harm is so much greater. Booze, drugs and junk food might destroy the body, but poetry has the far greater capacity to harm the body politic, and to destroy the individual soul > > > *** > > Meanwhile, as usual, the psychological Jung warrants no comment (my > questions repeated below,) from you inasmuch as what of his thinking > doesn't support your own opinions. Maybe - but Jung's " psychological " opinions support his own political opinions. That is, the views of " Rush Jung " are completely consistent with the views of " psychological Jung. " One could very conceivably derive and deduce Jung's political views from his psychological views, even if one had no direct knowledge of the former. I don't think it the case, as so many Jungians appear to think, that Jung was a brilliant psychologist who also - unfortunately - held some vicious, wrong-headed, but in the end entirely unrelated political opinions (excusable in part because he was, after all - and so unlike us - a mere " man of his time " ). Those genuine egalitarian liberal democrats who also hold no brief for Jung are likely to recoil in horror from him - and, given their views, understandably so. > This astonishes me; seems the > antithesis of philosophical mindedness. But, yours is a brutish > philosophy in any case. How else to characterize the law of the > jungle? As far as I know, the " law of the jungle " as it applies to human beings is that the individual person is dependent upon the tribe for survival. Do you know another way to survive in the jungle? I expect that what you have in mind, though, is my statements to the effect that nations exist vis-avis each other in a Hobbesian " state of nature. " Well, they certainly appear to - I calls 'em like I sees 'em. Do you think otherwise? > > > Nor is nature aristocratic. For what it may be worth, Jung says explicitly and repeatedly that it is. > This is anthropomorphizing, right? It is a statement about human nature, and human beings are a part of Nature. When Jung says that " nature is aristocratic, " he seems to me to mean that Nature does not distribute her gifts evenly among human beings. You've got the philosopher, the village idiot, and everything in between. > Nature > is brutally natural: might, and often complexities of organization > make for superiority over the short term. > > Over the long term, cockroaches and many simpler organisms must have > it about right. > > Agree? No? Hardly. Would you compare yourself to a cockroach? The best of humanity is an adequate excuse for the rest of humanity, imo. > > > You write: " Politics is a human science unto itself, and must be > approached as such. " > > Of course it cannot be bounded as a matter of philosophy or logic or > science. And your *must* is a bit of meaningless rhetoric. Well, " must " if one is to understand it. But of course it must be bound by logic, and if it is not a part of philosophy, it is nothing - a " load of spoof, " as a girlfriend of mind used to say. I'm not sure I take your point here. > Ah, the > Chicago School...mindless and discredited by the very virtue of > wishing to stand alone from aristocratic nature. I don't know what the " Chicago School " is - what is it? > No, Dan, you can't > have it both ways; as any mediocre philosophy major would be able to > tell you. > I'm not sure what you mean . I didn't mean to imply that the science of politics is somehow apart from philosophy (the " ur-science " that encompasses them all), but it is a particular discipline unto itself, with its own perspective. Regards, Dan > > *** > > regards, > > > > Q? Well, you've argued for a very simple world view. So be it. But, what > would you yourself be willing to give up to survive? What would you > give up for the sake of insuring that the interests you speak of are > respected, protected, fought for with good odds on their side, and > not embattled by the worries of people here? > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > > H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2003 Report Share Posted February 18, 2003 Dan, all, You raise various points about which both you and I have been opining and differing about for years. I don't know what use there would be in my expressing as much again. I think I've only been able to make the case to my own satisfaction! Jung's political views are to me mostly simplistic whereas his psychological views are mostly subtle and complex. Where we differ dramatically concerns our interpretations about what the nature of individuation is in Jung's view, and, especially, about to whom this individuation is said by Jung to really apply to. You've suggested in the past, and correct me if I'm wrong, that it is incumbent upon persons so inclined to understand these two aspects, firstly, according to how Jung himself understood it. You also have mentioned that only a few of Jung's predecessors have come close to getting it right. And I have countered that what they got right is understood by both themselves and many others differently than what you have yourself suggested is close to correct. Certainly Von Franz, for example, did not choose to carry a brief in favor of Jung's political views. Nor do any of the other " classical " analysts. This doesn't mean they disagree with Jung's political views, rather, they have largely been concerned with psychology, not politics. Whether understanding Jung as he intended to be understood is a practical project or not, I have also in the past suggested that the analytic psychology is itself a work-in-progress. Of course nowhere does Jung himself suggest otherwise. In fact, as a 19th century-styled empiricist, it is for Jung axiomatic that other person's experience of psychological truth will differ from his own. This experience may differ hardly at all, a little bit, a great deal, or even be innovative. Jung's concerns about Jungianism speak directly to this point. And, I do recognize that out of context a quote from Jung (such as,) " In actual fact, however, the ideal has been turned by superficial and formalistically minded believers into an external object of worship, and it is precisely this veneration for the object that prevents it from reaching down into the depths of the psyche and giving the latter a wholeness in keeping with the ideal. " can be highlighted to support a variety of views, including the view that one might be more seduced by Jung's ideas than actually able to implement them. But this idea also can be interpreted to mean that an objective understanding of Jung is an illusory. *** What is your most controversial suggestion, to me, and over the years my friend, is that the individual's commitment to his or her own individuation may be mistaken -according to Jung himself- unless this commitment meets certain standards not stated by Jung himself, but unequivocally stated by you as if these standards were self-evident and clear injunctions of the ol' fool. I have quoted Jung over and over again to demonstrate his own views cannot be reduced to those injunctions you so favor. (The most odd injunction being: one must read the ancients in their own language.) Not a single analyst has ever supported your novel interpretation. This includes any and all the analysts, few as they are in your own estimation, who's own perspectives and scholarship are closest to Jung. But the point that seems inescapable is that Jung many times, as a matter of his psychological understanding, argues for integration and warns against man deluding himself into thinking himself exceptional. Yes, people have differing capacities, and different capacities with respect to their own individuation, but the strata of the psyche is proposed by Jung to be universal and it is exactingly supposed by Jung that the integration of the Shadow does not imply an elite. Far from it... individuation humbles; allows for: " But what if I should discover that the least amongst them all, the poorest of all beggars, the most impudent of all offenders, yea the very fiend himself-that these are within me, and that I myself am the enemy who must be loved-what then? " What other conclusion could there be? The person who is individuating does not hold himself separate and above, nor is he held as an exemplar of the elect by others. He is modest; such a persons understands, despite any real differences in capacity, that he is not particularly different, exceptional. What other result is finally possible should one integrate the Shadow, learn to withdraw projections? It's a paradox: real individuation is exceptional but it doesn't happen because a certain rare man is obedient to Jung. This is not a small point of disagreement. Ironically as I see it, you offer views similar to Noll, the difference being that Noll thinks Jung's elitism is very bad and you think it is very good. I think both views misunderstand Jung. But, Dan, we just disagree. That's all. Whatever floats your boat. I'm bailing as I write this in any case. *** " I expect that what you have in mind, though, is my statements to the effect that nations exist vis-avis each other in a Hobbesian " state of nature. " Well, they certainly appear to - I calls 'em like I sees 'em. Do you think otherwise? " Yes. I do disagree. I think a reduction to the law of the jungle misses completely the sublimity of human nature, sublimity expressed in its best instincts. Sublimity also expressed by Jung's conception of the problems of the personality and the demands incurred by individuation. I don't paper over the primitive but I can't reduce to it either. I don't myself believe that it is psychologically healthy to see human nature in simple terms. What is missing is in your own conception is Love. How can you say Jung's psychology and political opinions are joined in your own understanding without ever mentioning the crucial feature, love? You never speak of it and its far from a throwaway to Jung. " When Jung says that " nature is aristocratic, " he seems to me to mean that Nature does not distribute her gifts evenly among human beings. You've got the philosopher, the village idiot, and everything in between. " So what? Again, " But what if I should discover that the least amongst them all, the poorest of all beggars, the most impudent of all offenders, yea the very fiend himself-that these are within me, and that I myself am the enemy who must be loved-what then? " Jung time and time again is concerned with the illusions of those who suppose their aristocracy, if you will, but aren't very conscious. And he warns about the problem of the lesser man who is unconsciously fused with aristocratic ideals. So, for Jung, what you write next describes a great, unfortunate problem, " The best of humanity is an adequate excuse for the rest of humanity, imo. " This is the participation mystique; the case where a person no longer thinks for themselves and is in a sense collectivized by this so-called, and to you vaunted, excuse. *** Let me return to love. " He who cannot love can never transform the serpent, and then nothing is changed. " (C.G.Jung) How does this fit in with Jung's political views. I think it does fit in. Again, " Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power predominates, love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other. " Fit it in, right at the most difficult (and far from the law of the jungle,) center point. Love is an inescapable aspect of Jung's world view and is also inescapably in his political views. But you never mention Love in the political context, Dan. Care to? regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2003 Report Share Posted February 18, 2003 Dear , I will count this as one of tomorrow's posts, as I am at leisure now and may not be tomorrow. Calhoun wrote: > Dan, all, > > You raise various points about which both you and I have been opining > and differing about for years. I don't know what use there would be > in my expressing as much again. > > I think I've only been able to make the case to my own satisfaction! > Jung's political views are to me mostly simplistic whereas his > psychological views are mostly subtle and complex. Well, I would point out that, compared to the complexity of the individual, the city is relatively simple (which is not to say that it is all that simple). > > > Where we differ dramatically concerns our interpretations about what > the nature of individuation is in Jung's view, and, especially, about > to whom this individuation is said by Jung to really apply to. To repeat what I've said in the past, Jung appears to talk about individuation in two different ways - and in one case, at least, " consciousness " is not required. When an acorn becomes an oak or a kitten a cat, that, too, is individuation. > > > You've suggested in the past, and correct me if I'm wrong, that it is > incumbent upon persons so inclined to understand these two aspects, > firstly, according to how Jung himself understood it. I do think we should strive to understand Jung - and any great thinker - first as he understood himself. > > > You also have mentioned that only a few of Jung's predecessors have > come close to getting it right. I think so. Philosophers themselves are rare - philosophers who come close to the truth rarer still? > And I have countered that what they > got right is understood by both themselves and many others > differently than what you have yourself suggested is close to > correct. Certainly Von Franz, for example, did not choose to carry a > brief in favor of Jung's political views. I don't know anything about her political views - apart from fa's statement to the effect that she had qualified admiration for the hippies, kinda sorta - so I can't comment on that. > Nor do any of the other > " classical " analysts. This doesn't mean they disagree with Jung's > political views, rather, they have largely been concerned with > psychology, not politics. But there's the rub - one cannot, or so I maintain, be concerned with psychology in any serious way without also and in the same breath (as it were) being concerned with politics. Anyone who doesn't think so, imo, reveals himself as someone who just doesn't get it - I don't care how many hours of analysis he has undergone, or how many books he has published, or how many degrees he has, or how young he was when he got tenure. > > > Whether understanding Jung as he intended to be understood is a > practical project or not, I have also in the past suggested that the > analytic psychology is itself a work-in-progress. Of course nowhere > does Jung himself suggest otherwise. In fact, as a 19th > century-styled empiricist, it is for Jung axiomatic that other > person's experience of psychological truth will differ from his own. I suggest that Jung was a classic philosopher of a generally Platonic stripe masquerading under the guise of a nineteenth century empiricist. Jung stretches the term " empiricist " to suit his purposes, and very funny it is, too, sometimes. Sure, other peoples' experiences will differ from one's own, sometimes radically - I meet madmen with some degree of regularity - but what has that to do with the truth? From where I sit, Jung remains underestimated - especially, it seems to me, by those who overestimate themselves. I do not - frankly - cease to be shocked by the number of people who appear to consider themselves to be in the same league as Jung, and fit to pronounce him wrong, even. > > > This experience may differ hardly at all, a little bit, a great deal, > or even be innovative. Jung's concerns about Jungianism speak > directly to this point. And, I do recognize that out of context a > quote from Jung (such as,) " In actual fact, however, the ideal has > been turned by superficial and formalistically minded believers into > an external object of worship, and it is precisely this veneration > for the object that prevents it from reaching down into the depths of > the psyche and giving the latter a wholeness in keeping with the > ideal. " can be highlighted to support a variety of views, including > the view that one might be more seduced by Jung's ideas than actually > able to implement them. But this idea also can be interpreted to mean > that an objective understanding of Jung > is an illusory. > > *** > > What is your most controversial suggestion, to me, and over the years > my friend, is that the individual's commitment to his or her own > individuation may be mistaken -according to Jung himself- unless this > commitment meets certain standards not stated by Jung himself, but > unequivocally stated by you as if these standards were self-evident > and clear injunctions of the ol' fool. I'm not altogether sure what you mean here. I would indeed maintain that one should not generally be the judge in his own case. Can a fool be individuated? Are some people " meant " to be fools? And, if so, should we for all that take their opinions seriously? > > > I have quoted Jung over and over again to demonstrate his own views > cannot be reduced to those injunctions you so favor. (The most odd > injunction being: one must read the ancients in their own language.) I don't say that categorically - but there are so few good translations that it might as well be true. One example: How many times have you seen the word " state " - a modern political concept beginning with Machiavelli - used to translate " republic " or " city " as used in ancient literature? The ancient didn't know from " state, " which is a novel concept (at least as used openly) altogether. Yes, a medieval scholar with good Latin could get by without Greek, because there were good, literal translations from the Greek to the Latin - but we are not so fortunate, so we have to do more work. Jung says that few people can be troubled to know themselves because it requires too much Greek and Latin - I take this statement to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and to refer simply to people's being too lazy to do the study necessary to achieve any self-knowledge - but there is some literal truth to it as well. > > Not a single analyst has ever supported your novel interpretation. I'm not sure what you have in mind - truly - when you speak of my " novel interpretation. " Jung says what he says. I don't claim to understand all of it, but I do think that I " get " some of his allusions, at least partially, thanks in part to other things that I've read. Few of Jung's interpreters - if any - know everything that Jung knew, or even as close to as much as Jung knew, as far as I can see. Noll actually has a few good insights into Jung, but because he hates Jung and what Jung stands for, he casts it all in a negative light. > > This includes any and all the analysts, few as they are in your own > estimation, who's own perspectives and scholarship are closest to > Jung. > > But the point that seems inescapable is that Jung many times, as a > matter of his psychological understanding, argues for integration and > warns against man deluding himself into thinking himself exceptional. Perhaps - but if one *is* exceptional (and Jung was, and surely knew that) - then that could hardly be called a delusion, could it? > > Yes, people have differing capacities, and different capacities with > respect to their own individuation, but the strata of the psyche is > proposed by Jung to be universal and it is exactingly supposed by > Jung that the integration of the Shadow does not imply an elite. Far > from it... individuation humbles; allows for: > > " But what if I should discover that the least amongst them all, the > poorest of all beggars, the most impudent of all offenders, yea the > very fiend himself-that these are within me, and that I myself am the > enemy who must be loved-what then? " Yes, just so. Who hate himself hates others. Love makes a man better, hatred makes him worse, says Jung. I think that Jung thinks that it is just here, at this point, that Nietzsche meets his downfall, brilliant though he was. > > > What other conclusion could there be? The person who is individuating > does not hold himself separate and above, nor is he held as an > exemplar of the elect by others. Hmmm... well I don't know about that so much. Was Jung not an " exemplar of the elect? " Was he particularly modest? I am reminded, though, of something Leo Strauss says about the philosopher - that the philosopher is ironic with the people insofar as he hides from them his own superiority to them. How can excellence be truly modest? If you will forgive me for saying so, such a notion seems to have the stink of Christianity about it. Aristotle describes the magnanimous man who deserves great honors, knows that he deserves them, and claims them. > He is modest; such a persons > understands, despite any real differences in capacity, that he is not > particularly different, exceptional. What other result is finally > possible should one integrate the Shadow, learn to withdraw > projections? > > It's a paradox: real individuation is exceptional but it doesn't > happen because a certain rare man is obedient to Jung. No, it can't be obedience, at least not indefinitely. The philosopher may learn, but he does not obey - that is, he does not accept authority. This is what has gotten him into trouble with the city, and also why certain poets mock him. > > > This is not a small point of disagreement. Ironically as I see it, > you offer views similar to Noll, the difference being that Noll > thinks Jung's elitism is very bad and you think it is very good. I > think both views misunderstand Jung. Ah, I see we reach a similar conclusion. Noll is not, imo, correct in everything he says about Jung, but he is correct about some things - his mistake, as you say, is in thinking that Jung is bad because not a good liberal democrat or egalitarian or whatever it is that Noll wishes him to be. > > > But, Dan, we just disagree. That's all. Whatever floats your boat. > I'm bailing as I write this in any case. > > *** > > " I expect that what you have in mind, though, is my statements to the > effect that nations exist vis-avis each other in a Hobbesian " state > of nature. " Well, they certainly appear to - I calls 'em like I sees > 'em. Do you think otherwise? " > > Yes. I do disagree. I think a reduction to the law of the jungle > misses completely the sublimity of human nature, sublimity expressed > in its best instincts. Sublimity also expressed by Jung's conception > of the problems of the personality and the demands incurred by > individuation. I don't paper over the primitive but I can't reduce > to it either. I don't myself believe that it is psychologically > healthy to see human nature in simple terms. > > What is missing is in your own conception is Love. How can you say > Jung's psychology and political opinions are joined in your own > understanding without ever mentioning the crucial feature, love? You > never speak of it and its far from a throwaway to Jung. I have frequently mentioned love in this context. The love appropriate to the political is love of one's own. There are greater loves, no doubt, but that is the love that matters at the political level. It flies in the face of (genuine) Christianity, which makes some claim to universality. Still, I think even Jesus acknowledged the apolitical nature of his teaching with his " render unto Caesar " admonition - which may be all very well, but the city as city still needs a religion. > > > " When Jung says that " nature is aristocratic, " he seems to me to mean > that Nature does not distribute her gifts evenly among human beings. > You've got the philosopher, the village idiot, and everything in > between. " > > So what? Again, " But what if I should discover that the least amongst > them all, the poorest of all beggars, the most impudent of all > offenders, yea the very fiend himself-that these are within me, and > that I myself am the enemy who must be loved-what then? " > > Jung time and time again is concerned with the illusions of those who > suppose their aristocracy, if you will, but aren't very conscious. > And he warns about the problem of the lesser man who is unconsciously > fused with aristocratic ideals. The nice thing about aristocratic ideals is that they are well attuned to the needs of the " lesser man. " They don't require " consciousness " in order to to " work, " if you'll pardon the crudity of expression. Aristocrats needn't be intellectuals or scholars, never mind philosophers - far from it. The " aristocratic ideal " is more a matter of habituation than actual understanding. > > > So, for Jung, what you write next describes a great, unfortunate problem, > > " The best of humanity is an adequate excuse for the rest of humanity, imo. " > > This is the participation mystique; the case where a person no longer > thinks for themselves and is in a sense collectivized by this > so-called, and to you vaunted, excuse. Well, I don't take your point here. Would you elaborate? > > > *** > > Let me return to love. " He who cannot love can never transform the > serpent, and then nothing is changed. " (C.G.Jung) > > How does this fit in with Jung's political views. I think it does fit > in. Again, > > " Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power > predominates, love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other. " I note that he does not say that one can feasibly have one without the other. Will-to-power is one of the functional, and presumably needful, instincts of the animal Man. > > > Fit it in, right at the most difficult (and far from the law of the > jungle,) center point. Love is an inescapable aspect of Jung's world > view and is also inescapably in his political views. Jung writes in one place that he " despises " politics - I believe it was because he chafed under the limitations of politics. He - unlike so many Jungians - knew full well the limitations of politics, or, in other words, he knew of the great and permanent imperfectibility of mankind. He didn't like it, but he didn't shrink from it. Unlike Jung, I do not despise politics, and this is, I suppose, one way in which we differ (for better or worse). To repeat, love comes into politics as love of one's own. To expect that one love the whole world is too much to ask - I love my own animals more than I love the faceless, teeming " masses " half a world away (although I wish them no harm); I don't think that I am the Lone Ranger in this respect, either, lol. Regards, Dan > > > But you never mention Love in the political context, Dan. > > Care to? > > regards, > > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > > H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2003 Report Share Posted February 20, 2003 Dan, all, In our now and then tennis matches I eventually start to feel the sense of deja vu; as Yogi Berra said, 'all over again'! You write, >Well, I would point out that, compared to the complexity of the >individual, the city is relatively simple (which is not to say that >it is all that >simple). Of course. The city is partly made up of persons so in one way of looking at it, it's at least as complex as its constituents. >To repeat what I've said in the past, Jung appears to talk about >individuation in two different ways - and in one case, at least, > " consciousness " is >not required. When an acorn becomes an oak or a kitten a cat, that, >too, is individuation. Yes. This is an important point because here is the suggestion that individuation can happen outside of Jung's framing, both as a matter of nature and as a matter happening outside of analytic psychology's framing. The two ways of individuation are related too: this implies people were struggling to individuate one way or the other long before (forever before,) Jung gave us a framework by which it could be talked about, etc. >I do think we should strive to understand Jung - and any great >thinker - first as he understood himself. Sure, but, this is nothing more than a belief system about how to approach the material. >But there's the rub - one cannot, or so I maintain, be concerned >with psychology in any serious way without also and in the same >breath (as it were) >being concerned with politics. Anyone who doesn't think so, imo, >reveals himself as someone who just doesn't get it - [snip] Again, I understand your position, but this is, again, your personally held belief. It may color your impressions of what other people are up to, which is fine, but it doesn't for me have the force of an essential principle. ...each to their own for better or worse... >From where I sit, Jung remains >underestimated - especially, it seems to me, by those who >overestimate themselves. I do not - frankly - cease to be shocked by >the number of people >who appear to consider themselves to be in the same league as Jung, >and fit to pronounce him wrong, even. I comprehend how this phenomena bugs you. Ha! You state this problem very clearly. Speaking for myself, I have disagreements with some of Jung's ideas. I wouldn't say that I'm on his level, or close to it, but I'd also point out that I'm on my own level and to borrow from the good doctor, this " is problem enough " . >I'm not altogether sure what you mean here. I would indeed maintain >that one should not generally be the judge in his own case. Can a >fool be >individuated? Are some people " meant " to be fools? And, if so, >should we for all that take their opinions seriously? Your viewpoint here is commonsensical to me. I don't know if people are meant to be fools, but I suppose some people are meant to express their own acorn naturally and not required to consciously individuate. As far as the opinions of others, how I take them is simply part of my own problem really. I surround myself with friends and associates who teach me a lot. I don't ordinarily judge them categorically. If someone triggers me in certain ways I've often caught myself feeling superior to them, or inferior to them. This sense, when it arises, has also taught me a lot about my own prejudices, sometimes has taught me about my complexes, and other times has made clear that as different as I might sort myself to be from them, that, in other ways, we're in the same very big, divine family. There's a lot to be said for surrounding yourself with people who help you set the bar high. >I take this statement to be somewhat >tongue-in-cheek, and to refer simply to people's being too lazy to >do the study necessary to achieve any self-knowledge - but there is >some literal >truth to it as well. This might be true enough. But, again, it one holds people to their own standards, the holding as much will also represent the ways in which one's self is prejudiced by those same standards. I'd call this a problem of our very human nature and also be mindful of how those standards are rooted in our own particular and oft peculiar psychology. So, to be prejudiced in any way presents an opportunity for self-understanding and, hopefully, this understanding might bring our own bundle of unconscious reactions into the light. *** > > Not a single analyst has ever supported your novel interpretation. [snip] >Few of Jung's interpreters - >if any - know everything that Jung knew, or even as close to as much >as Jung knew, as far as I can see. Okay, My own argument by way of non-association isn't an argument at all. It's quite unfair and lazy; please excuse me! *** >Perhaps - but if one *is* exceptional (and Jung was, and surely knew >that) - then that could hardly be called a delusion, could it? Of course not. I don't think a lot *positively* and psychologically rests on one's knowing that they are themselves exceptional. You are the one who suggests one can't be the judge in their own case. Anyway, if one is thought by others to be -say- an exemplar in some important sense, this is both a hope and and a hazard for the person. I think this idea is consistent with analytic psychology's perspectives. *** Now we get to the real point of controversy! >I have frequently mentioned love in this context. The love >appropriate to the political is love of one's own. There are greater >loves, no doubt, but >that is the love that matters at the political level. I disagree. I don't see the other forms of love cut off from the political. Maybe I'm wrong, but, I'm far away from you on this very point. I'm tempted to argue on behalf of Jung, but, instead, I'll tell you that from my dim POV the forms of love are like a great spiral with none of those forms being impractical in matters political. They are conjoined, finally. However, how Love is implemented and to what purpose is not trivialized either by this idea. Far from it... I recognize that there are circumstances for which one must be conscious about the distinctions and about the imperative Love reveals. >The > " aristocratic ideal " is more a matter of habituation than actual >understanding. Yet, for another conscious person this very ideal is sunk by its habituation. History is filled with battles between different aristocrats. And I don't think we can pass over the plight of the common man just because a society is seemingly well organized around those same ideals. (This speaks to the following.) > > " The best of humanity is an adequate excuse for the rest of humanity, imo. " >> >> This is the participation mystique; the case where a person no longer >> thinks for themselves and is in a sense collectivized by this >> so-called, and to you vaunted, excuse. > >Well, I don't take your point here. Would you elaborate? Finally... > He - unlike so many >Jungians - knew full well the limitations of politics, or, in other >words, he knew of the great and permanent imperfectibility of >mankind. Yes. I don't find the analytic psychology, even where it has by extension become innovative, suggests otherwise. There are other framings which suggest perfectibility is possible. Alternately, one might wonder about how the inexpressible could possibly be perfected. Thanks Dan; good vigorous match. Plenty of food for thought... regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2003 Report Share Posted February 20, 2003 In a message dated 2/20/2003 3:05:09 PM Central Standard Time, toni.toni2@... writes: > I had not time to be > brief. > Hi Toni, This is absolutely wonderful. >The first time you amaze yourself by an emotion which you cannot control >flying out of you for everything that you see, you know it must come from >spirit. I am so with you on this entire post! How neat is that?! LOL Namasté Sam in Texas §(ô¿ô)§ " Life makes you walk that delicate balance between Making It Happen and Letting It Happen. " -- Rick Beneteau Minds are like parachutes; they only function when open. - Sir Dewar A closed mind is a good thing to lose. " Minds are like parachutes; most people use them only as a last resort. " ~Ben Ostrowsky Some minds are like concrete, thoroughly mixed up and permanently set. ~mrantho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2003 Report Share Posted February 20, 2003 Dear Dan and , You all may want to excercise your delete buttons. I warn both of you and anyone else who reads this that I had not time to be brief. I took a great chance, and tried to explain the unexplainable. I stammer, and pull back, the decide I have got to do it...Mostly Dan, because I remember my own perplexity on the whole subject of " love " (not the erotic kind, but for all men.) From my view, I hadn't 'gotten it " and I think you do not either. Once, I did know it, even a little, I realized as everyone always has been saying, it is ALL. Dan wrote: " have frequently mentioned love in this context. The love appropriate to the political is love of one's own. There are greater loves, no doubt, but that is the love that matters at the political level. It flies in the face of (genuine) Christianity, which makes some claim to universality. Still, I think even Jesus acknowledged the apolitical nature of his teaching with his " render unto Caesar " admonition - which may be all very well, but the city as city still needs a religion. " Dan, in my humble opinion you are discussing a sort of love, if it is that, that has nothing to do with the love either Jung or was discussing. For one , there is no such thing as true " political love of one's own " What on earth would " political love " be? Love is indivisible.in the meaning of the word, I think. Anyone can love 'one's own.( , nothing unusual about that,'that is why it is even addressed in Scripture) That certainly isn't what Jesus, whom you quote, or Jung meant by the word: 'love " In fact, Jesus addressed this subject personally. Christian love, as any theologian would be pleased to tell you comes not simply from the will power of the individual, from the emotion he can stir up within himself, to " have " love. In fact The love Jesus showed was love with no boundaries, and was denied no one. That also is the love Jung is speaking about as is obvious from his expressed spirituality. Love, as most religions preach, and the love that those great people quoted by Jung whom he believed, is way beyond what you describe.It is nothing that we can talk ourselves into nor is it purely romantic .I personally believe it is a grace for which we must ask, because we realize how far short we are of love within ourselves.( for example, think of before his trip to Damascus. he hated the so called apostates who still considered themselves Jews. One fall off a horse, and he suddenly feels nothing but love for these same people.whom he has been persecuting.???..that is not possibly sane human behavior.) The first time you amaze yourself by an emotion which you cannot control flying out of you for everything that you see, you know it must come from spirit. Something happened to the person,, which is explained as an 'infusion' of love. It was spirit, pure and simple. No other explanation exists. I quote: " I sometime feel that 's words:-'though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels and have not love " -might well be the first condition of all cognition and the quintessence of divinity itself.... No language is adequate to this paradox. Whatever one says no words expresses the whole. To speak of partial aspects is always too much or too little, for only the whole is meaningful. Love 'bears all things, and endures all things. These words say all there is to said; nothing can be added to them. " Love " I have put it in quotation marks to indicate that I do not use it in its connotations of desiring, preferring, favoring.wishing and similar feelings, but as something superior to the individual, a unified and undivided whole. " Jung,MDR That is the love Jung was talking about, that is the love that was trying to explain to you. It simply cannot be rationally explained. It is simply an overflowing ( I stammer too) It is pure gift to anyone who asks.It is not rationed to the saintly or the " good' people.It is not what you describe as your understanding of love. This , of course, is my " take' on this discussion. I obviously cannot examine your heart, so I have to go by your words. It also seems obvious in your discussions, not only about politics, but really about human beings in general. Besides one doesn't 'understand " love. It is totally un-understandable. I am making no judgments at all.I may be misunderstanding. I am taking a chance that we are alike to a degree.I hope only to point out why you and , you and I, and I fear, you and Jung aren't on the same wave length. you said: " I suggest that Jung was a classic philosopher of a generally Platonic stripe masquerading under the guise of a nineteenth century empiricist. Jung > stretches the term " empiricist " to suit his purposes, and very funny it is, too, sometimes. " Again in my humble opinion, You are judging him( Jung) without understanding him. .. Jung cannot be understood just with your intellect.Why not take him at his word...what he think he is??? He did not deal purely with his intellect in his relationship to patients, nor did he write purely from his intellect..He was even captured by his unconscious...he did not rationally decide to have those early experiences. The psyche is not understood to contain only intellect. Just think of his subject matter...it is discussed intuitively as well as 'scientifically " Think of how he described his own experiences.He had plenty of emotion and plenty of feeling. His understanding of love did not erupt from his brain as a 'sensible " way to feel. Jung dealt with the other's total person, with his total person.His spirituality shone through. This I think we are all meant to do, what love does. And like him, we too shall fail occasionally, since we are human. Rational understanding is not enough. There is more to us than our reasoning ability. I can understand where you are coming from, personally, because I used to get so mad when I kept hearing how we are to love. " good Catholic, observant catholic, well meaning catholic that I was then. I couldn't even like most people, loving them was out of the question. Ray and I argued about it a lot,and my friends in the priesthood explained that it was important for us to " will " to wish the best for others and that was love. I accepted that for a while., as I patted myself on the back. Then I had my metanoia,one of them, and suddenly I understood. I did nothing, and suddenly I acted in a loving way, and it was not put on. Of course this wonderful feeling does not last forever.I knew Who/What to thank . Left to our own devices, we would find ourselves slipping out of love, and back in our own groove again.. But, it is possible to get " reinjected " with the power to love, if one accepts that the spirit does work. All one has to do is ask in sincerity and open oneself up. It is what is known as 'grace' I know you are impatient with all this because the world is supposed to be rational and understood rationally. Our whole society agrees with you. Our whole 'self-improvement movement' agrees with you,some scientists and obviously many psychologists deal with their patients that way, as do most medical people. That is what Jung warned about, and is unfortunate as I view people around me... And, that is what is wrong with us all. Anyway, you and ,and you and I will always disagree because we have different assumptions about reality, due to different experiences. I am sure I come off sounding terrible: sweetly pious, pompous, " holier than thou ' and hypocrite. I have got to say it anyway. ..I sound as if I had all the answers.Obviously to anyone who knows me, this is a laugh. I don't have it all together, I am obviously not always as loving as I must be. But I must be true to my own experiences and say if it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone. It only takes a hunger for love and a desire to be filled.( and it gets easier) And in my case also, a leap of faith out of my too rational mind.( on which I always prided myself) Catch that word? pride...that's what I always have /had too much of. Especially of my ability to act rationally. It is still so much of a temptation, and I am not often able to withstand temptation. But there is always hope. Toni To: <JUNG-FIRE > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 1:26 AM Subject: Re: human science > Dear , > > I will count this as one of tomorrow's posts, as I am at leisure now and may not be tomorrow. > > Calhoun wrote: > > > Dan, all, > > > > You raise various points about which both you and I have been opining > > and differing about for years. I don't know what use there would be > > in my expressing as much again. > > > > I think I've only been able to make the case to my own satisfaction! > > Jung's political views are to me mostly simplistic whereas his > > psychological views are mostly subtle and complex. > > Well, I would point out that, compared to the complexity of the individual, the city is relatively simple (which is not to say that it is all that > simple). > > > > > > > > Where we differ dramatically concerns our interpretations about what > > the nature of individuation is in Jung's view, and, especially, about > > to whom this individuation is said by Jung to really apply to. > > To repeat what I've said in the past, Jung appears to talk about individuation in two different ways - and in one case, at least, " consciousness " is > not required. When an acorn becomes an oak or a kitten a cat, that, too, is individuation. > > > > > > > > You've suggested in the past, and correct me if I'm wrong, that it is > > incumbent upon persons so inclined to understand these two aspects, > > firstly, according to how Jung himself understood it. > > I do think we should strive to understand Jung - and any great thinker - first as he understood himself. > > > > > > > You also have mentioned that only a few of Jung's predecessors have > > come close to getting it right. > > I think so. Philosophers themselves are rare - philosophers who come close to the truth rarer still? > > > > And I have countered that what they > > got right is understood by both themselves and many others > > differently than what you have yourself suggested is close to > > correct. Certainly Von Franz, for example, did not choose to carry a > > brief in favor of Jung's political views. > > I don't know anything about her political views - apart from fa's statement to the effect that she had qualified admiration for the hippies, kinda > sorta - so I can't comment on that. > > > Nor do any of the other > > " classical " analysts. This doesn't mean they disagree with Jung's > > political views, rather, they have largely been concerned with > > psychology, not politics. > > But there's the rub - one cannot, or so I maintain, be concerned with psychology in any serious way without also and in the same breath (as it were) > being concerned with politics. Anyone who doesn't think so, imo, reveals himself as someone who just doesn't get it - I don't care how many hours of > analysis he has undergone, or how many books he has published, or how many degrees he has, or how young he was when he got tenure. > > > > > > > > Whether understanding Jung as he intended to be understood is a > > practical project or not, I have also in the past suggested that the > > analytic psychology is itself a work-in-progress. Of course nowhere > > does Jung himself suggest otherwise. In fact, as a 19th > > century-styled empiricist, it is for Jung axiomatic that other > > person's experience of psychological truth will differ from his own. > > I suggest that Jung was a classic philosopher of a generally Platonic stripe masquerading under the guise of a nineteenth century empiricist. Jung > stretches the term " empiricist " to suit his purposes, and very funny it is, too, sometimes. Sure, other peoples' experiences will differ from one's > own, sometimes radically - I meet madmen with some degree of regularity - but what has that to do with the truth? From where I sit, Jung remains > underestimated - especially, it seems to me, by those who overestimate themselves. I do not - frankly - cease to be shocked by the number of people > who appear to consider themselves to be in the same league as Jung, and fit to pronounce him wrong, even. > > > > > > > > This experience may differ hardly at all, a little bit, a great deal, > > or even be innovative. Jung's concerns about Jungianism speak > > directly to this point. And, I do recognize that out of context a > > quote from Jung (such as,) " In actual fact, however, the ideal has > > been turned by superficial and formalistically minded believers into > > an external object of worship, and it is precisely this veneration > > for the object that prevents it from reaching down into the depths of > > the psyche and giving the latter a wholeness in keeping with the > > ideal. " can be highlighted to support a variety of views, including > > the view that one might be more seduced by Jung's ideas than actually > > able to implement them. But this idea also can be interpreted to mean > > that an objective understanding of Jung > > is an illusory. > > > > *** > > > > What is your most controversial suggestion, to me, and over the years > > my friend, is that the individual's commitment to his or her own > > individuation may be mistaken -according to Jung himself- unless this > > commitment meets certain standards not stated by Jung himself, but > > unequivocally stated by you as if these standards were self-evident > > and clear injunctions of the ol' fool. > > I'm not altogether sure what you mean here. I would indeed maintain that one should not generally be the judge in his own case. Can a fool be > individuated? Are some people " meant " to be fools? And, if so, should we for all that take their opinions seriously? > > > > > > > > > I have quoted Jung over and over again to demonstrate his own views > > cannot be reduced to those injunctions you so favor. (The most odd > > injunction being: one must read the ancients in their own language.) > > I don't say that categorically - but there are so few good translations that it might as well be true. One example: How many times have you seen the > word " state " - a modern political concept beginning with Machiavelli - used to translate " republic " or " city " as used in ancient literature? The > ancient didn't know from " state, " which is a novel concept (at least as used openly) altogether. Yes, a medieval scholar with good Latin could get by > without Greek, because there were good, literal translations from the Greek to the Latin - but we are not so fortunate, so we have to do more work. > Jung says that few people can be troubled to know themselves because it requires too much Greek and Latin - I take this statement to be somewhat > tongue-in-cheek, and to refer simply to people's being too lazy to do the study necessary to achieve any self-knowledge - but there is some literal > truth to it as well. > > > > > > > Not a single analyst has ever supported your novel interpretation. > > I'm not sure what you have in mind - truly - when you speak of my " novel interpretation. " Jung says what he says. I don't claim to understand all of > it, but I do think that I " get " some of his allusions, at least partially, thanks in part to other things that I've read. Few of Jung's interpreters - > if any - know everything that Jung knew, or even as close to as much as Jung knew, as far as I can see. > > Noll actually has a few good insights into Jung, but because he hates Jung and what Jung stands for, he casts it all in a negative light. > > > > > > This includes any and all the analysts, few as they are in your own > > estimation, who's own perspectives and scholarship are closest to > > Jung. > > > > But the point that seems inescapable is that Jung many times, as a > > matter of his psychological understanding, argues for integration and > > warns against man deluding himself into thinking himself exceptional. > > Perhaps - but if one *is* exceptional (and Jung was, and surely knew that) - then that could hardly be called a delusion, could it? > > > > > > Yes, people have differing capacities, and different capacities with > > respect to their own individuation, but the strata of the psyche is > > proposed by Jung to be universal and it is exactingly supposed by > > Jung that the integration of the Shadow does not imply an elite. Far > > from it... individuation humbles; allows for: > > > > " But what if I should discover that the least amongst them all, the > > poorest of all beggars, the most impudent of all offenders, yea the > > very fiend himself-that these are within me, and that I myself am the > > enemy who must be loved-what then? " > > Yes, just so. Who hate himself hates others. Love makes a man better, hatred makes him worse, says Jung. I think that Jung thinks that it is just > here, at this point, that Nietzsche meets his downfall, brilliant though he was. > > > > > > > > What other conclusion could there be? The person who is individuating > > does not hold himself separate and above, nor is he held as an > > exemplar of the elect by others. > > Hmmm... well I don't know about that so much. Was Jung not an " exemplar of the elect? " Was he particularly modest? I am reminded, though, of something > Leo Strauss says about the philosopher - that the philosopher is ironic with the people insofar as he hides from them his own superiority to them. How > can excellence be truly modest? If you will forgive me for saying so, such a notion seems to have the stink of Christianity about it. Aristotle > describes the magnanimous man who deserves great honors, knows that he deserves them, and claims them. > > > > He is modest; such a persons > > understands, despite any real differences in capacity, that he is not > > particularly different, exceptional. What other result is finally > > possible should one integrate the Shadow, learn to withdraw > > projections? > > > > It's a paradox: real individuation is exceptional but it doesn't > > happen because a certain rare man is obedient to Jung. > > No, it can't be obedience, at least not indefinitely. The philosopher may learn, but he does not obey - that is, he does not accept authority. This is > what has gotten him into trouble with the city, and also why certain poets mock him. > > > > > > > This is not a small point of disagreement. Ironically as I see it, > > you offer views similar to Noll, the difference being that Noll > > thinks Jung's elitism is very bad and you think it is very good. I > > think both views misunderstand Jung. > > Ah, I see we reach a similar conclusion. Noll is not, imo, correct in everything he says about Jung, but he is correct about some things - his > mistake, as you say, is in thinking that Jung is bad because not a good liberal democrat or egalitarian or whatever it is that Noll wishes him to be. > > > > > > > > But, Dan, we just disagree. That's all. Whatever floats your boat. > > I'm bailing as I write this in any case. > > > > *** > > > > " I expect that what you have in mind, though, is my statements to the > > effect that nations exist vis-avis each other in a Hobbesian " state > > of nature. " Well, they certainly appear to - I calls 'em like I sees > > 'em. Do you think otherwise? " > > > > Yes. I do disagree. I think a reduction to the law of the jungle > > misses completely the sublimity of human nature, sublimity expressed > > in its best instincts. Sublimity also expressed by Jung's conception > > of the problems of the personality and the demands incurred by > > individuation. I don't paper over the primitive but I can't reduce > > to it either. I don't myself believe that it is psychologically > > healthy to see human nature in simple terms. > > > > What is missing is in your own conception is Love. How can you say > > Jung's psychology and political opinions are joined in your own > > understanding without ever mentioning the crucial feature, love? You > > never speak of it and its far from a throwaway to Jung. > > I have frequently mentioned love in this context. The love appropriate to the political is love of one's own. There are greater loves, no doubt, but > that is the love that matters at the political level. It flies in the face of (genuine) Christianity, which makes some claim to universality. Still, I > think even Jesus acknowledged the apolitical nature of his teaching with his " render unto Caesar " admonition - which may be all very well, but the > city as city still needs a religion. > > > > > > > " When Jung says that " nature is aristocratic, " he seems to me to mean > > that Nature does not distribute her gifts evenly among human beings. > > You've got the philosopher, the village idiot, and everything in > > between. " > > > > So what? Again, " But what if I should discover that the least amongst > > them all, the poorest of all beggars, the most impudent of all > > offenders, yea the very fiend himself-that these are within me, and > > that I myself am the enemy who must be loved-what then? " > > > > Jung time and time again is concerned with the illusions of those who > > suppose their aristocracy, if you will, but aren't very conscious. > > And he warns about the problem of the lesser man who is unconsciously > > fused with aristocratic ideals. > > The nice thing about aristocratic ideals is that they are well attuned to the needs of the " lesser man. " They don't require " consciousness " in order > to to " work, " if you'll pardon the crudity of expression. Aristocrats needn't be intellectuals or scholars, never mind philosophers - far from it. The > " aristocratic ideal " is more a matter of habituation than actual understanding. > > > > > > > So, for Jung, what you write next describes a great, unfortunate problem, > > > > " The best of humanity is an adequate excuse for the rest of humanity, imo. " > > > > This is the participation mystique; the case where a person no longer > > thinks for themselves and is in a sense collectivized by this > > so-called, and to you vaunted, excuse. > > Well, I don't take your point here. Would you elaborate? > > > > > > > *** > > > > Let me return to love. " He who cannot love can never transform the > > serpent, and then nothing is changed. " (C.G.Jung) > > > > How does this fit in with Jung's political views. I think it does fit > > in. Again, > > > > " Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power > > predominates, love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other. " > > I note that he does not say that one can feasibly have one without the other. Will-to-power is one of the functional, and presumably needful, > instincts of the animal Man. > > > > > > > > Fit it in, right at the most difficult (and far from the law of the > > jungle,) center point. Love is an inescapable aspect of Jung's world > > view and is also inescapably in his political views. > > Jung writes in one place that he " despises " politics - I believe it was because he chafed under the limitations of politics. He - unlike so many > Jungians - knew full well the limitations of politics, or, in other words, he knew of the great and permanent imperfectibility of mankind. He didn't > like it, but he didn't shrink from it. Unlike Jung, I do not despise politics, and this is, I suppose, one way in which we differ (for better or > worse). To repeat, love comes into politics as love of one's own. To expect that one love the whole world is too much to ask - I love my own animals > more than I love the faceless, teeming " masses " half a world away (although I wish them no harm); I don't think that I am the Lone Ranger in this > respect, either, lol. > > Regards, > > Dan > > > > > > > But you never mention Love in the political context, Dan. > > > > Care to? > > > > regards, > > > > > > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > > > > H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2003 Report Share Posted February 20, 2003 Hello Toni, I hope you don't mind the intrusion but I found your post moving. Two words struck me as I read: " faith " and " grace " . The kind of love you describe and life itself seem to arise from the same mystery. You've probably seen the Bill Moyers interview with ph in which tells a story of a policeman in Hawaii who was called to a situation where a young man was about to jump off a cliff to commit suicide. Without thinking the policeman leapt forward after the boy and grabbed onto him, but the policeman's partner had to grab him or they would have both gone over the edge. Later when asked why he did it, the policeman could only respond he couldn't have lived with himself if he'd let that young boy go. said in the interview it was at that moment of crisis the policeman " realized " on some level that his life and the boy's life were one. I attended a peace conference many years ago at which Aitken was present. One of the speakers said something similar to 's statement, that when the realization is upon us that I and the other are one, not only do we choose not to harm but we *cannot* harm. This kind of consciousness is beyond reason and I think it does come from an experience of Grace or God or whatever term one gives to represent that mystery. And although we can't always live on the peaks of epiphany, we can " lean toward that light " , I believe. Of course we experience the whole range of human emotion and I do think the darker feelings have their purpose...so it does get complicated! If only wars could be metaphorical! Well why can't we create a ritual dedicated to expressing and acknowledging our shadow without unleashing the kind of destruction that overtook Hiroshima? Well, perhaps now I'm rambling! BUt I do think Jung believed we humans are capable of experiencing who and what we are in relationship to Nature and the Divine. What then? Who can imagine? " Love was the very animal made his lair, slept out his winter in my heart. Did he seek my heart or ever sleep there? " Duncan > > > > > Dan, all, > > > > > > You raise various points about which both you and I have been opining > > > and differing about for years. I don't know what use there would be > > > in my expressing as much again. > > > > > > I think I've only been able to make the case to my own satisfaction! > > > Jung's political views are to me mostly simplistic whereas his > > > psychological views are mostly subtle and complex. > > > > Well, I would point out that, compared to the complexity of the > individual, the city is relatively simple (which is not to say that it is > all that > > simple). > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where we differ dramatically concerns our interpretations about what > > > the nature of individuation is in Jung's view, and, especially, about > > > to whom this individuation is said by Jung to really apply to. > > > > To repeat what I've said in the past, Jung appears to talk about > individuation in two different ways - and in one case, at least, > " consciousness " is > > not required. When an acorn becomes an oak or a kitten a cat, that, too, > is individuation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You've suggested in the past, and correct me if I'm wrong, that it is > > > incumbent upon persons so inclined to understand these two aspects, > > > firstly, according to how Jung himself understood it. > > > > I do think we should strive to understand Jung - and any great thinker - > first as he understood himself. > > > > > > > > > > > You also have mentioned that only a few of Jung's predecessors have > > > come close to getting it right. > > > > I think so. Philosophers themselves are rare - philosophers who come close > to the truth rarer still? > > > > > > > And I have countered that what they > > > got right is understood by both themselves and many others > > > differently than what you have yourself suggested is close to > > > correct. Certainly Von Franz, for example, did not choose to carry a > > > brief in favor of Jung's political views. > > > > I don't know anything about her political views - apart from fa's > statement to the effect that she had qualified admiration for the hippies, > kinda > > sorta - so I can't comment on that. > > > > > Nor do any of the other > > > " classical " analysts. This doesn't mean they disagree with Jung's > > > political views, rather, they have largely been concerned with > > > psychology, not politics. > > > > But there's the rub - one cannot, or so I maintain, be concerned with > psychology in any serious way without also and in the same breath (as it > were) > > being concerned with politics. Anyone who doesn't think so, imo, reveals > himself as someone who just doesn't get it - I don't care how many hours of > > analysis he has undergone, or how many books he has published, or how many > degrees he has, or how young he was when he got tenure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whether understanding Jung as he intended to be understood is a > > > practical project or not, I have also in the past suggested that the > > > analytic psychology is itself a work-in-progress. Of course nowhere > > > does Jung himself suggest otherwise. In fact, as a 19th > > > century-styled empiricist, it is for Jung axiomatic that other > > > person's experience of psychological truth will differ from his own. > > > > I suggest that Jung was a classic philosopher of a generally Platonic > stripe masquerading under the guise of a nineteenth century empiricist. Jung > > stretches the term " empiricist " to suit his purposes, and very funny it > is, too, sometimes. Sure, other peoples' experiences will differ from one's > > own, sometimes radically - I meet madmen with some degree of regularity - > but what has that to do with the truth? From where I sit, Jung remains > > underestimated - especially, it seems to me, by those who overestimate > themselves. I do not - frankly - cease to be shocked by the number of people > > who appear to consider themselves to be in the same league as Jung, and > fit to pronounce him wrong, even. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This experience may differ hardly at all, a little bit, a great deal, > > > or even be innovative. Jung's concerns about Jungianism speak > > > directly to this point. And, I do recognize that out of context a > > > quote from Jung (such as,) " In actual fact, however, the ideal has > > > been turned by superficial and formalistically minded believers into > > > an external object of worship, and it is precisely this veneration > > > for the object that prevents it from reaching down into the depths of > > > the psyche and giving the latter a wholeness in keeping with the > > > ideal. " can be highlighted to support a variety of views, including > > > the view that one might be more seduced by Jung's ideas than actually > > > able to implement them. But this idea also can be interpreted to mean > > > that an objective understanding of Jung > > > is an illusory. > > > > > > *** > > > > > > What is your most controversial suggestion, to me, and over the years > > > my friend, is that the individual's commitment to his or her own > > > individuation may be mistaken -according to Jung himself- unless this > > > commitment meets certain standards not stated by Jung himself, but > > > unequivocally stated by you as if these standards were self- evident > > > and clear injunctions of the ol' fool. > > > > I'm not altogether sure what you mean here. I would indeed maintain that > one should not generally be the judge in his own case. Can a fool be > > individuated? Are some people " meant " to be fools? And, if so, should we > for all that take their opinions seriously? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have quoted Jung over and over again to demonstrate his own views > > > cannot be reduced to those injunctions you so favor. (The most odd > > > injunction being: one must read the ancients in their own language.) > > > > I don't say that categorically - but there are so few good translations > that it might as well be true. One example: How many times have you seen the > > word " state " - a modern political concept beginning with Machiavelli - > used to translate " republic " or " city " as used in ancient literature? The > > ancient didn't know from " state, " which is a novel concept (at least as > used openly) altogether. Yes, a medieval scholar with good Latin could get > by > > without Greek, because there were good, literal translations from the > Greek to the Latin - but we are not so fortunate, so we have to do more > work. > > Jung says that few people can be troubled to know themselves because it > requires too much Greek and Latin - I take this statement to be somewhat > > tongue-in-cheek, and to refer simply to people's being too lazy to do the > study necessary to achieve any self-knowledge - but there is some literal > > truth to it as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not a single analyst has ever supported your novel interpretation. > > > > I'm not sure what you have in mind - truly - when you speak of my " novel > interpretation. " Jung says what he says. I don't claim to understand all of > > it, but I do think that I " get " some of his allusions, at least partially, > thanks in part to other things that I've read. Few of Jung's interpreters - > > if any - know everything that Jung knew, or even as close to as much as > Jung knew, as far as I can see. > > > > Noll actually has a few good insights into Jung, but because he hates Jung > and what Jung stands for, he casts it all in a negative light. > > > > > > > > > > This includes any and all the analysts, few as they are in your own > > > estimation, who's own perspectives and scholarship are closest to > > > Jung. > > > > > > But the point that seems inescapable is that Jung many times, as a > > > matter of his psychological understanding, argues for integration and > > > warns against man deluding himself into thinking himself exceptional. > > > > Perhaps - but if one *is* exceptional (and Jung was, and surely knew > that) - then that could hardly be called a delusion, could it? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, people have differing capacities, and different capacities with > > > respect to their own individuation, but the strata of the psyche is > > > proposed by Jung to be universal and it is exactingly supposed by > > > Jung that the integration of the Shadow does not imply an elite. Far > > > from it... individuation humbles; allows for: > > > > > > " But what if I should discover that the least amongst them all, the > > > poorest of all beggars, the most impudent of all offenders, yea the > > > very fiend himself-that these are within me, and that I myself am the > > > enemy who must be loved-what then? " > > > > Yes, just so. Who hate himself hates others. Love makes a man better, > hatred makes him worse, says Jung. I think that Jung thinks that it is just > > here, at this point, that Nietzsche meets his downfall, brilliant though > he was. > > > > > > > > > > > > > What other conclusion could there be? The person who is individuating > > > does not hold himself separate and above, nor is he held as an > > > exemplar of the elect by others. > > > > Hmmm... well I don't know about that so much. Was Jung not an " exemplar of > the elect? " Was he particularly modest? I am reminded, though, of something > > Leo Strauss says about the philosopher - that the philosopher is ironic > with the people insofar as he hides from them his own superiority to them. > How > > can excellence be truly modest? If you will forgive me for saying so, such > a notion seems to have the stink of Christianity about it. Aristotle > > describes the magnanimous man who deserves great honors, knows that he > deserves them, and claims them. > > > > > > > He is modest; such a persons > > > understands, despite any real differences in capacity, that he is not > > > particularly different, exceptional. What other result is finally > > > possible should one integrate the Shadow, learn to withdraw > > > projections? > > > > > > It's a paradox: real individuation is exceptional but it doesn't > > > happen because a certain rare man is obedient to Jung. > > > > No, it can't be obedience, at least not indefinitely. The philosopher may > learn, but he does not obey - that is, he does not accept authority. This is > > what has gotten him into trouble with the city, and also why certain poets > mock him. > > > > > > > > > > > This is not a small point of disagreement. Ironically as I see it, > > > you offer views similar to Noll, the difference being that Noll > > > thinks Jung's elitism is very bad and you think it is very good. I > > > think both views misunderstand Jung. > > > > Ah, I see we reach a similar conclusion. Noll is not, imo, correct in > everything he says about Jung, but he is correct about some things - his > > mistake, as you say, is in thinking that Jung is bad because not a good > liberal democrat or egalitarian or whatever it is that Noll wishes him to > be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, Dan, we just disagree. That's all. Whatever floats your boat. > > > I'm bailing as I write this in any case. > > > > > > *** > > > > > > " I expect that what you have in mind, though, is my statements to the > > > effect that nations exist vis-avis each other in a Hobbesian " state > > > of nature. " Well, they certainly appear to - I calls 'em like I sees > > > 'em. Do you think otherwise? " > > > > > > Yes. I do disagree. I think a reduction to the law of the jungle > > > misses completely the sublimity of human nature, sublimity expressed > > > in its best instincts. Sublimity also expressed by Jung's conception > > > of the problems of the personality and the demands incurred by > > > individuation. I don't paper over the primitive but I can't reduce > > > to it either. I don't myself believe that it is psychologically > > > healthy to see human nature in simple terms. > > > > > > What is missing is in your own conception is Love. How can you say > > > Jung's psychology and political opinions are joined in your own > > > understanding without ever mentioning the crucial feature, love? You > > > never speak of it and its far from a throwaway to Jung. > > > > I have frequently mentioned love in this context. The love appropriate to > the political is love of one's own. There are greater loves, no doubt, but > > that is the love that matters at the political level. It flies in the face > of (genuine) Christianity, which makes some claim to universality. Still, I > > think even Jesus acknowledged the apolitical nature of his teaching with > his " render unto Caesar " admonition - which may be all very well, but the > > city as city still needs a religion. > > > > > > > > > > > " When Jung says that " nature is aristocratic, " he seems to me to mean > > > that Nature does not distribute her gifts evenly among human beings. > > > You've got the philosopher, the village idiot, and everything in > > > between. " > > > > > > So what? Again, " But what if I should discover that the least amongst > > > them all, the poorest of all beggars, the most impudent of all > > > offenders, yea the very fiend himself-that these are within me, and > > > that I myself am the enemy who must be loved-what then? " > > > > > > Jung time and time again is concerned with the illusions of those who > > > suppose their aristocracy, if you will, but aren't very conscious. > > > And he warns about the problem of the lesser man who is unconsciously > > > fused with aristocratic ideals. > > > > The nice thing about aristocratic ideals is that they are well attuned to > the needs of the " lesser man. " They don't require " consciousness " in order > > to to " work, " if you'll pardon the crudity of expression. Aristocrats > needn't be intellectuals or scholars, never mind philosophers - far from it. > The > > " aristocratic ideal " is more a matter of habituation than actual > understanding. > > > > > > > > > > > So, for Jung, what you write next describes a great, unfortunate > problem, > > > > > > " The best of humanity is an adequate excuse for the rest of humanity, > imo. " > > > > > > This is the participation mystique; the case where a person no longer > > > thinks for themselves and is in a sense collectivized by this > > > so-called, and to you vaunted, excuse. > > > > Well, I don't take your point here. Would you elaborate? > > > > > > > > > > > *** > > > > > > Let me return to love. " He who cannot love can never transform the > > > serpent, and then nothing is changed. " (C.G.Jung) > > > > > > How does this fit in with Jung's political views. I think it does fit > > > in. Again, > > > > > > " Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power > > > predominates, love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other. " > > > > I note that he does not say that one can feasibly have one without the > other. Will-to-power is one of the functional, and presumably needful, > > instincts of the animal Man. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fit it in, right at the most difficult (and far from the law of the > > > jungle,) center point. Love is an inescapable aspect of Jung's world > > > view and is also inescapably in his political views. > > > > Jung writes in one place that he " despises " politics - I believe it was > because he chafed under the limitations of politics. He - unlike so many > > Jungians - knew full well the limitations of politics, or, in other words, > he knew of the great and permanent imperfectibility of mankind. He didn't > > like it, but he didn't shrink from it. Unlike Jung, I do not despise > politics, and this is, I suppose, one way in which we differ (for better or > > worse). To repeat, love comes into politics as love of one's own. To > expect that one love the whole world is too much to ask - I love my own > animals > > more than I love the faceless, teeming " masses " half a world away > (although I wish them no harm); I don't think that I am the Lone Ranger in > this > > respect, either, lol. > > > > Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > > But you never mention Love in the political context, Dan. > > > > > > Care to? > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby > beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and > suffering. " > > > > > > H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2003 Report Share Posted February 20, 2003 Toni, Sam, all, > >The first time you amaze yourself by an emotion which you cannot control >>flying out of you for everything that you see, you know it must come from >>spirit. > >I am so >with you on this entire post! How neat is that?! LOL Me too. Really, love finally has nothing to do with Jung in the sense that doing it, being love, being a love being, (no matter how weakly!) is different than feeling sympathetic to the way Jung speaks of his own experience. Among the most transformative experiences of my own life were the several experiences through which I came to feel the lovespirit channeling through my own very modest incarnation. You see the insight was not particularly commensurate with the experience. The insight was incommensurate. I'd even say it didn't make sense under the actual circumstances. But, I can't refuse what happened. (By the way, in this sense, that Jung was a great man and I am just little old me is completely besides the point.) Anyway, my coming to a circumstance impressionable and vulnerable and immature did allow for a furious intense attachment to a teacher (or two or three - they kept showing up,) and, needless to say this relation was completely unconscious and numinous and primitive and eventually exhausting and maddening. But, then, the teacher leaves, or, says to me, " Go away! " , or suggests " there is nothing more for you in our group " . And the feeling is amazing and cannot be controlled and it flies through me and the loss would anger but instead so quick it breaks my heart. The insight: the little heart breaks open and inside it is the big Heart, strong and noble and it was always there but I just had no idea, couldn't have had an idea. Wasn't ready to trust. Etc. Grace; baraka. Well this almost shakes one completely to pieces. Unconscious I walked a razor's edge, maybe with steel boots, but broken and ruined, now, there was the sharpness under bared feet; excruciating, almost unbearable. So, is it about truth? Or is about the truth of Love, what Love now demands? ....the latter! Verified by Jung? Who cares? regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2003 Report Share Posted February 24, 2003 Dear , You wrote: > Dan, all, > > In our now and then tennis matches I eventually start to feel the > sense of deja vu; as Yogi Berra said, 'all over again'! > > You write, > > >Well, I would point out that, compared to the complexity of the > >individual, the city is relatively simple (which is not to say that > >it is all that > >simple). > > Of course. The city is partly made up of persons so in one way of > looking at it, it's at least as complex as its constituents. > > >To repeat what I've said in the past, Jung appears to talk about > >individuation in two different ways - and in one case, at least, > > " consciousness " is > >not required. When an acorn becomes an oak or a kitten a cat, that, > >too, is individuation. > > Yes. This is an important point because here is the suggestion that > individuation can happen outside of Jung's framing, both as a matter > of nature and as a matter happening outside of analytic psychology's > framing. The two ways of individuation are related too: this implies > people were struggling to individuate one way or the other long > before (forever before,) Jung gave us a framework by which it could > be talked about, etc. The " framework " is not new with Jung (I am convinced that he discovered little or nothing that was not known before, although he did rediscover it largely on his own and - for better or worse - made it more accessible to us moderns). Apart from that, I see nothing to disagree with here. > > > >I do think we should strive to understand Jung - and any great > >thinker - first as he understood himself. > > Sure, but, this is nothing more than a belief system about how to > approach the material. A " belief system " ? - it is an opinion. I have no " belief system " - I have a body of opinions, many of which may well be wrong. > > > >But there's the rub - one cannot, or so I maintain, be concerned > >with psychology in any serious way without also and in the same > >breath (as it were) > >being concerned with politics. Anyone who doesn't think so, imo, > >reveals himself as someone who just doesn't get it - [snip] > > Again, I understand your position, but this is, again, your > personally held belief. It may color your impressions of what other > people are up to, which is fine, but it doesn't for me have the force > of an essential principle. ...each to their own for better or worse... I disagree - you give here a recipe for disaster. It is a high-falutin' way of saying, " Anything goes. " There are " essential principles " or there are not, but whether they are and what they are is not a matter of personal preference or " one's own. " It is a matter of fact, albeit a matter of fact about which we may not know the truth. Gravity doesn't care whether or not it has " for you " the force of an " essential principle " - careless tourists have been known to discover this in dramatic fashion at our own Grand Canyon, lol. So also with the laws of politics and psychology. Nature doesn't care what we think - she is a goddess, and compared to her we are just - well, just us. > > > >From where I sit, Jung remains > >underestimated - especially, it seems to me, by those who > >overestimate themselves. I do not - frankly - cease to be shocked by > >the number of people > >who appear to consider themselves to be in the same league as Jung, > >and fit to pronounce him wrong, even. > > I comprehend how this phenomena bugs you. Ha! Indeed. How dare they? Where to they get their nerve? And I should trust such people? > You state this problem > very clearly. Speaking for myself, I have disagreements with some of > Jung's ideas. I wouldn't say that I'm on his level, or close to it, > but I'd also point out that I'm on my own level and to borrow from > the good doctor, this " is problem enough " . > > >I'm not altogether sure what you mean here. I would indeed maintain > >that one should not generally be the judge in his own case. Can a > >fool be > >individuated? Are some people " meant " to be fools? And, if so, > >should we for all that take their opinions seriously? > > Your viewpoint here is commonsensical to me. I don't know if people > are meant to be fools, but I suppose some people are meant to express > their own acorn naturally and not required to consciously > individuate. As far as the opinions of others, how I take them is > simply part of my own problem really. I surround myself with friends > and associates who teach me a lot. I don't ordinarily judge them > categorically. If someone triggers me in certain ways I've often > caught myself feeling superior to them, or inferior to them. Don't you then wish to discover whether or not you are correct in that feeling? - i.e., whether or not you are indeed superior or inferior to them? > This > sense, when it arises, has also taught me a lot about my own > prejudices, sometimes has taught me about my complexes, and other > times has made clear that as different as I might sort myself to be > from them, that, in other ways, we're in the same very big, divine > family. > > There's a lot to be said for surrounding yourself with people who > help you set the bar high. > > >I take this statement to be somewhat > >tongue-in-cheek, and to refer simply to people's being too lazy to > >do the study necessary to achieve any self-knowledge - but there is > >some literal > >truth to it as well. > > This might be true enough. But, again, it one holds people to their > own standards, the holding as much will also represent the ways in > which one's self is prejudiced by those same standards. I'd call this > a problem of our very human nature and also be mindful of how those > standards are rooted in our own particular and oft peculiar > psychology. So, to be prejudiced in any way presents an opportunity > for self-understanding and, hopefully, this understanding might bring > our own bundle of unconscious reactions into the light. > > *** > > > > Not a single analyst has ever supported your novel interpretation. > > [snip] > > >Few of Jung's interpreters - > >if any - know everything that Jung knew, or even as close to as much > >as Jung knew, as far as I can see. > > Okay, My own argument by way of non-association isn't an argument at > all. It's quite unfair and lazy; please excuse me! Excused. Argument from authority is always a temptation, and I have sometimes been known to argue from Jung's authority - (but, in my defense, he is a hell of an authority, one must admit :-). > > > *** > > >Perhaps - but if one *is* exceptional (and Jung was, and surely knew > >that) - then that could hardly be called a delusion, could it? > > Of course not. I don't think a lot *positively* and psychologically > rests on one's knowing that they are themselves exceptional. You are > the one who suggests one can't be the judge in their own case. Good point, but this is a general rule. There may be a few exceptions (i.e., the one with self-knowledge?). Of course, even Socrates finds himself subject to the city, justly or not. > > Anyway, if one is thought by others to be -say- an exemplar in some > important sense, this is both a hope and and a hazard for the person. > I think this idea is consistent with analytic psychology's > perspectives. > > *** > > Now we get to the real point of controversy! > > >I have frequently mentioned love in this context. The love > >appropriate to the political is love of one's own. There are greater > >loves, no doubt, but > >that is the love that matters at the political level. > > I disagree. I don't see the other forms of love cut off from the > political. Maybe I'm wrong, but, I'm far away from you on this very > point. I'm tempted to argue on behalf of Jung, but, instead, I'll > tell you that from my dim POV the forms of love are like a great > spiral with none of those forms being impractical in matters > political. They are conjoined, finally. Well, I just don't get it. It seems to me that any citizen or any ruler or any regime (if regimes do love) that tries to love all men as he loves himself or his own will simply be paralyzed. How can such a regime do what is at times needful. How will it say, " We eat, you starve, " or, " We shoot, you die, " if it considers all men its brothers, or if it " values " all men equally? Yet sometimes such harshness is required if the city as city is to survive. This leads to another question, which I will simply pose without trying to answer. Does, as some of the ancients claimed, the city represent the most natural way of life for man (apart from the lofty realm of the philosopher, I mean)? It seems to me that modern progressives don't think so - or rather, they want to solve the problems of harsh necessity referenced above by making the whole world one city, one regime, one world under one law. (As you already know, but which I will repeat for emphasis, I consider this to be the worst possible outcome, compared to which a series of hellish nuclear wars that reduce the human population to a small fraction of itself and leave much of the earth a smoldering, poisonous ruin for centuries is greatly to be preferred.) > > > However, how Love is implemented and to what purpose is not > trivialized either by this idea. Far from it... I recognize that > there are circumstances for which one must be conscious about the > distinctions and about the imperative Love reveals. Your capitalization of Love, as though it were like God, speaks volumes. When I speak of love of one's own, I don't mean Love, I just mean love. I love my wife, I love my family, I love my country, I love my pets, etc. There's nothing cosmic about it, as far as I can see. > > > >The > > " aristocratic ideal " is more a matter of habituation than actual > >understanding. > > Yet, for another conscious person this very ideal is sunk by its > habituation. I don't think that Jung understands the aristocrat to be necessarily particularly " conscious. " The " huntin', shootin', fishin' " type (as type) is not particularly conscious. Jung's " aristocratic ideal " does not require great consciousness among the aristocracy itself, as I understand it (Xenophon speaks of the " prefect gentleman, " but refers to Socrates as the " perfect human being. " ) Yet Jung nonetheless describes that ideal as most needful for a decent society (and a " decent " society is about the best one might hope for, not so?) > History is filled with battles between different > aristocrats. And I don't think we can pass over the plight of the > common man just because a society is seemingly well organized around > those same ideals. Jung argues - and it seems to me to be the case also - that genuine aristocracy benefits the common man. Under our current materialist regimes, however, we have the situation where, as Jung puts it, the American worker considers himself a poor devil because he has only one car, while his boss has three. And he perhaps considers a lucky devil the man who can afford to collect Porsches and house them in midtown Manhattan, lol. It all misses the point. > > > (This speaks to the following.) > > > > " The best of humanity is an adequate excuse for the rest of humanity, imo. " > >> > >> This is the participation mystique; the case where a person no longer > >> thinks for themselves and is in a sense collectivized by this > >> so-called, and to you vaunted, excuse. > > > >Well, I don't take your point here. Would you elaborate? > > Finally... > > > He - unlike so many > >Jungians - knew full well the limitations of politics, or, in other > >words, he knew of the great and permanent imperfectibility of > >mankind. > > Yes. I don't find the analytic psychology, even where it has by > extension become innovative, suggests otherwise. There are other > framings which suggest perfectibility is possible. OK - kindly name two. Marxism, which has already failed spectacularly at the cost of massive unnecessary human suffering, is already ruled out. > Alternately, one > might wonder about how the inexpressible could possibly be perfected. > > Thanks Dan; good vigorous match. Plenty of food for thought... Thank you. Regards, Dan " We'll take Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island too.... " Dinah Washington > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2003 Report Share Posted February 24, 2003 Dear Dan and , love your corrspondence, but Dan, as usual- but there is something very basic that you believe which may make a lot of what Jung says beside the point. you said : " do the study necessary to achieve any self-knowledge " How often does Jung you write about the fact that self-knowledge isn't simply the knowledge of our conscious self? You can study that if you can call that study. But most of you is unconscious, and that too is part of " you " , but it is impossible to " study " . You cannot, as you know, dig through your unconscious at will and " study' it This is too important a part of Jung's understanding to ignore.It also should douse that inflation we all exhibit when we think or say we " know ourselves " . we actually know very little....especially what we are capable of. you wrote: Well, I just don't get it. It seems to me that any citizen or any ruler or any regime (if regimes do love) that tries to love all men as he loves > himself or his own will simply be paralyzed. How can such a regime do what is at times needful. How will it say, " We eat, you starve, " or, " We shoot, " Love is not some wishy washy feeling. Jung actually has a lot to say about this subject. It is simply reality. One can love a person and disagree with him. One can love a person and think he is wrong about something. Love is unconditional. It does not paralyze.It wants the best possible for all at the expense of none. It does however not put a higher price on one's own head than that of another.Even those who have some 'authority " over others can love unconditionally as many parents do with their children, grown children too. One can say. You must not do that because it is wrong, and still love the person who does it anyway. To my mind that is the whole point of the word " suffering " . The need to make choices, especially between bad and worse. No one ever said real love means never having to make difficult choices. ( for example there may come a time when one may have to say " no " to a beloved, as one's heart aches, but to be loving it must be said...for the good of the other.). you wrote: " > Your capitalization of Love, as though it were like God, speaks volumes. When I speak of love of one's own, I don't mean Love, I just mean love. I > love my wife, I love my family, I love my country, I love my pets, etc. There's nothing cosmic about it, as far as I can see " No one has yet been able to love without the spirit within. Call it G-d, or Self, it aids the weak human emotion of love. That is of course, why capitalized it. You glorify the human, in my opinion. Without belief in something greater than himself, love remains a puny earthly emotion subject to every wind that blows. Eros, on the otherhand, is described as just such energy or libido. You said: " I will repeat for emphasis, I consider this(world government) to be the worst possible outcome, compared to which a series of hellish > nuclear wars that reduce the human population to a small fraction of itself and leave much of the earth a smoldering, poisonous ruin for centuries is > greatly to be preferred.) " Could you possibly be wrong, do you think? I do not mean today, but at some time in the future when the majority is more conscious? You leave us in the current state , but mankind may advance consciously a tiny bit at a time. World Government is yet a dream, not a possibility. But small steps in that direction are possible now. you wrote: " The " framework " is not new with Jung (I am convinced that he discovered little or nothing that was not known before, although he did rediscover it > largely on his own and - for better or worse - made it more accessible to us moderns). Apart from that, I see nothing to disagree with here. " Who before Jung spoke of the " collective unconscious " ? And who described it as Jung did? True we have some knowledge of what we meant by personal unconsciousnes, but not much and only shortly before him. In fact, Dan, you, who says we can't pick and chose parts to agree with and parts to ignore in Jung's writing, does just that. If you take the body of his work you will find opposition to what you write here. No, I don't intend to quote chapter and verse.I just wonder how do you separate what Jung said to what " he actually wrote? Toni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2003 Report Share Posted February 24, 2003 Dear Toni, Vienna wrote: > > > How often does Jung you write about the fact that self-knowledge isn't > simply the knowledge of our conscious self? You can study that if you can > call that study. But most of you is unconscious, and that too is part of > " you " , but it is impossible to " study " . You cannot, as you know, dig through > your unconscious at will and " study' it To the degree that the unconscious is collective as opposed to merely personal, one can read about it in books - it has been written about, by Jung and others. To the degree that it is " personal " - that it requires a personal " journey " (as it is called in these parts, rather preciously imo) - well, yes, but one still requires the map, no? Jung said of his own books that yes, he knew they were thick, but one must read them. > > This is too important a part of Jung's understanding to ignore.It also > should douse that inflation we all exhibit when we think or say we " know > ourselves " . we actually know very little....especially what we are capable > of. > > you wrote: > Well, I just don't get it. It seems to me that any citizen or any ruler or > any regime (if regimes do love) that tries to love all men as he loves > > himself or his own will simply be paralyzed. How can such a regime do what > is at times needful. How will it say, " We eat, you starve, " or, " We shoot, " > > Love is not some wishy washy feeling. Jung actually has a lot to say about > this subject. It is simply reality. One can love a person and disagree with > him. One can love a person and think he is wrong about something. Love is > unconditional. It does not paralyze.It wants the best possible for all at > the expense of none. > It does however not put a higher price on one's own head than that of > another. And hence it is by nature apolitical - and hence it is insufficient (unless you can figure out a way to dispense with the political, lol). > Even those who have some 'authority " over others can love > unconditionally as many parents do with their children, grown children too. > One can say. You must not do that because it is wrong, and still love the > person who does it anyway. > To my mind that is the whole point of the word " suffering " . The need to make > choices, especially between bad and worse. No one ever said real love means > never having to make difficult choices. ( for example there may come a time > when one may have to say " no " to a beloved, as one's heart aches, but to be > loving it must be said...for the good of the other.). > you wrote: > " > Your capitalization of Love, as though it were like God, speaks volumes. > When I speak of love of one's own, I don't mean Love, I just mean love. I > > love my wife, I love my family, I love my country, I love my pets, etc. > There's nothing cosmic about it, as far as I can see " > > No one has yet been able to love without the spirit within. Call it G-d, or > Self, it aids the weak human emotion of love. That is of course, why > capitalized it. You glorify the human, in my opinion. Eh, I've been reading Greeks lately. > Without belief in > something greater than himself, love remains a puny earthly emotion subject > to every wind that blows. Eros, on the otherhand, is described as just such > energy or libido. > > You said: > > " I will repeat for emphasis, I consider this(world government) to be the > worst possible outcome, compared to which a series of hellish > > nuclear wars that reduce the human population to a small fraction of > itself and leave much of the earth a smoldering, poisonous ruin for > centuries is > > greatly to be preferred.) " > > Could you possibly be wrong, do you think? I do not mean today, but at some > time in the future when the majority is more conscious? You leave us in the > current state , but mankind may advance consciously a tiny bit at a time. I could always be wrong, but I wouldn't bet the future of mankind on it in this case- esp. since much greater minds than mine have foreseen the same grave dangers. > > World Government is yet a dream, not a possibility. But small steps in that > direction are possible now. I say that that it is indeed a possibility, and a very possible possibility - that's what I'm alarmed about > > > you wrote: > " The " framework " is not new with Jung (I am convinced that he discovered > little or nothing that was not known before, although he did rediscover it > > largely on his own and - for better or worse - made it more accessible to > us moderns). Apart from that, I see nothing to disagree with here. " > > Who before Jung spoke of the " collective unconscious " ? Plato. Alchemists. Probably lots of others. They just didn't use the term " collective unconsciousness. " Jung's work reflects more of a renaissance than a truly pioneering effort - which is good, because novelty is usually bad. > And who described it > as Jung did? True we have some knowledge of what we meant by personal > unconsciousnes, but not much and only shortly before him. > > In fact, Dan, you, who says we can't pick and chose parts to agree with and > parts to ignore in Jung's writing, does just that. > If you take the body of his work you will find opposition to what you write > here. > No, I don't intend to quote chapter and verse.I just wonder how do you > separate what Jung said to what " he actually wrote? Well, as I have said, I don't see where Jung contradicts me, esp. with respect to the political. The " body of his work, " as far as I can see, draws a sharp distinction between the individual and the collective, and further urther distinction between various classes of individual. Regards, Dan " Nobody has read Plato anymore - you haven't either (to a reporter). But he is one of the ones who has come closest to the truth. " CGJ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2003 Report Share Posted February 24, 2003 Dan, Toni, all, Dan, I'll take it a little farther but methinks that in doing so, the candle will soon be burning the plate. The moth got gulped long ago. You write, " A " belief system " ? - it is an opinion. I have no " belief system " - I have a body of opinions, many of which may well be wrong. " You quibble on semantics but I'll try to not make this mistake again. I give more weight to my own beliefs (over opinions,) for the most part. You write, " I disagree - you give here a recipe for disaster. " It can be a recipe for disaster. Anything can go, and go right over the proverbial cliff. I didn't say anything *should* go. How is anything regulated? With some difficulty, I'd say, and say this about the " anything " which may motivate or drive a person or be the roots of a person's intention. " It is a matter of fact, albeit a matter of fact about which we may not know the truth. Gravity doesn't care whether or not it has " for you " the force of an " essential principle " " You imply an argument by analogy, " it " being factual, as gravity is factual. (Dan, I thought we were talking about human nature.) Are there facts about human nature as irrevocable to it as the laws of physics are to the physical world? " There are " essential principles " or there are not, but whether they are and what they are is not a matter of personal preference or " one's own. " " But gravity isn't in the domain for which one's preference about this or that principle supports an argument by way of analogy; apples and oranges. Maybe someday somebody will come up with facts about our nature which will strike us as being irrevocable, as gravity is irrevocable. Otherwise we're stuck with principles that are relatively true. I don't know of any philosophical argument that has successfully identified irrevocable facts about our human nature outside of physical science, and, outside of mathematics, that are analogous to the factual laws of physics. Do you? *** " Don't you then wish to discover whether or not you are correct in that feeling? - i.e., whether or not you are indeed superior or inferior to them? " I don't bother to do this much. My own experience is that, eventually, my feeling of having correctly gauged my own superiority turns into a more correct inferiority. Drat-it. *** " How will it say, " We eat, you starve, " or, " We shoot, you die, " if it considers all men its brothers, or if it " values " all men equally? Yet sometimes such harshness is required if the city as city is to survive. " Yes. You describe a long-standing problem. I don't have any answers. What is in the heart of the citizen or ruler is going to be decisive, finally. I recognize too that if survival of the city or survival, period, is the highest value then this is much less of a problem. " It seems to me that modern progressives don't think so - or rather, they want to solve the problems of harsh necessity referenced above by making the whole world one city, one regime, one world under one law. " This is both an overgeneralized and reductive way to look at it, imo. In the abstract, someone might say that the only way to solve all the world's problems is to get them all solved. This is so easy to say and so hard to accomplish that I can't take it to the end you suppose, one world-city-regime-law. It doesn't follow. I don't know of any progressives who have wisely mapped out the steps of this fantasy, nor do I know of any who have tried. If you reverse the abstract formula and wonder if it would be optimal to first have one world-city-regime-law and then proceed to solve all the problems of the world I would see that as regressivism and know in advance that our human nature would severely disrupt such a project, perhaps to make it impossible. (...a good thing too, to disrupt such prospects.) Dan, the one world this and that doesn't horrify me because I'm almost certain it will never happen, because I see it as not consistent with the dynamic, creative and divine human nature, and, well, because, God Willing, I won't exceed my own actuarial expectations by too many years. *** " Your capitalization of Love, as though it were like God, speaks volumes. When I speak of love of one's own, I don't mean Love, I just mean love. I love my wife, I love my family, I love my country, I love my pets, etc. There's nothing cosmic about it, as far as I can see. " Okay. Years ago I tapped a pretty woman on the shoulder. She was in front of me waiting to order some ice cream. She had just told the clerk that she " loves chocolate ice cream " . I gently got her attention, and, wag that I am, asked her, " Do you mean love, like the love you feel for people? Or do you mean: like, or enjoy? " (I didn't get the date; came close though. But, after five minutes she still didn't want to dump her boyfriend. We did get to share our cones together.) *** " Jung argues - and it seems to me to be the case also - that genuine aristocracy benefits the common man. " Dan, first describe the benefits the aristocracy is to support or deliver, and then we can together assess a specific situation. Second, describe a specific historical situation for which it can be said your abstract idea fusing aristocracy, benefit, and the common man was -in fact- eventuated. *** You ask about the perfectibility of man. Can I name two framings where it is supposed that it is possible? Anybody can say that perfectibility is possible and for any reason. I think a better question would be: Has any man/woman become perfected? If so, how did it come about? As I wrote before, Alternately, one might wonder about how the inexpressible could possibly be perfected. regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2003 Report Share Posted February 25, 2003 Yes, Dan. read what Jung says about the unconscious and learn it. Then tell me what happens the next time you become infuriated? defensive ? afraid.? You remember complexes? Knowing something with your mind, because you read it somewhere does not give you mastery over the vast unconsciousness You can read the directions on riding a bike too, but until you are on one, you will not learn to ride one.Somehow you always skip the part where Jung warns against the modern myopia and hubris in thinking your ability to think rationally is all that is needed in life . Your reason will not help you in your discovery of the unconscious...or for that matter in your enjoyment of a meaningful life.The ego is not all. Reading Jung, the same one I read ,would remind you that the ego is a tiny boat in a huge ocean. You will never know yourself totally, even your personal unconscious, not even more than a bit. Somewhere buried in your unconscious is the other part of yourself. The ego we all see, but the Self? How do you deal with it? you said about the power of love: " And hence it is by nature apolitical - and hence it is insufficient (unless you can figure out a way to dispense with the political, lol) " .. Jung as well as most great thinkers throughout the ages would disagree. Love is insufficient because it is not used, it is not found within so many of us.It is not insufficient in the world. I know I am speaking " in tongues " to you. What has not been part of your present experience is therefore not knowable .I just don't why I keep trying so hard. Well, honestly, I really do. My ego, is too involved. Too much zeal to convert, and that is real hubris.Dan is Dan and Toni is Toni. I will try to leave it at that. (wish me luck) Toni Re: human science > Dear Toni, > Vienna wrote: > > > How often does Jung you write about the fact that self-knowledge isn't > > simply the knowledge of our conscious self? You can study that if you can > > call that study. But most of you is unconscious, and that too is part of > > " you " , but it is impossible to " study " . You cannot, as you know, dig through > > your unconscious at will and " study' it Dan:> To the degree that the unconscious is collective as opposed to merely personal, one can read about it in books - it has been written about, by Jung > and others. To the degree that it is " personal " - that it requires a personal " journey " (as it is called in these parts, rather preciously imo) - > well, yes, but one still requires the map, no? Jung said of his own books that yes, he knew they were thick, but one must read them. Toni >> > This is too important a part of Jung's understanding to ignore.It also > > should douse that inflation we all exhibit when we think or say we " know > > ourselves " . we actually know very little....especially what we are capable > > of. > > > > Dan wrote: > > Well, I just don't get it. It seems to me that any citizen or any ruler or > > any regime (if regimes do love) that tries to love all men as he loves > > > himself or his own will simply be paralyzed. How can such a regime do what > > is at times needful. How will it say, " We eat, you starve, " or, " We shoot, " Toni: > > Love is not some wishy washy feeling. Jung actually has a lot to say about > > this subject. It is simply reality. One can love a person and disagree with > > him. One can love a person and think he is wrong about something. Love is > > unconditional. It does not paralyze.It wants the best possible for all at > > the expense of none. > > It does however not put a higher price on one's own head than that of > > another. Dan > And hence it is by nature apolitical - and hence it is insufficient (unless you can figure out a way to dispense with the political, lol). Toni: > > Even those who have some 'authority " over others can love > > unconditionally as many parents do with their children, grown children too. > > One can say. You must not do that because it is wrong, and still love the > > person who does it anyway. > > To my mind that is the whole point of the word " suffering " . The need to make > > choices, especially between bad and worse. No one ever said real love means > > never having to make difficult choices. ( for example there may come a time > > when one may have to say " no " to a beloved, as one's heart aches, but to be > > loving it must be said...for the good of the other.). > > Dan wrote: > > " > Your capitalization of Love, as though it were like God, speaks volumes. > > When I speak of love of one's own, I don't mean Love, I just mean love. I > > > love my wife, I love my family, I love my country, I love my pets, etc. > > There's nothing cosmic about it, as far as I can see " Toni: > > No one has yet been able to love without the spirit within. Call it G-d, or > > Self, it aids the weak human emotion of love. That is of course, why > > capitalized it. You glorify the human, in my opinion. > Dan > Eh, I've been reading Greeks lately. Toni: >> > Without belief in > > something greater than himself, love remains a puny earthly emotion subject > > to every wind that blows. Eros, on the otherhand, is described as just such > > energy or libido. > > > > Dan said: > > > > " I will repeat for emphasis, I consider this(world government) to be the > > worst possible outcome, compared to which a series of hellish > > > nuclear wars that reduce the human population to a small fraction of > > itself and leave much of the earth a smoldering, poisonous ruin for > > centuries is > > > greatly to be preferred.) " > Toni > > Could you possibly be wrong, do you think? I do not mean today, but at some > > time in the future when the majority is more conscious? You leave us in the > > current state , but mankind may advance consciously a tiny bit at a time. > Dan > I could always be wrong, but I wouldn't bet the future of mankind on it in this case- esp. since much greater minds than mine have foreseen the same > grave dangers. Toni > > World Government is yet a dream, not a possibility. But small steps in that > > direction are possible now. > Dan > I say that that it is indeed a possibility, and a very possible possibility - that's what I'm alarmed about >> > Dan wrote: > > " The " framework " is not new with Jung (I am convinced that he discovered > > little or nothing that was not known before, although he did rediscover it > > > largely on his own and - for better or worse - made it more accessible to > > us moderns). Apart from that, I see nothing to disagree with here. " Toni > > Who before Jung spoke of the " collective unconscious " ? > Dan > Plato. Alchemists. Probably lots of others. They just didn't use the term " collective unconsciousness. " > Jung's work reflects more of a renaissance than a truly pioneering effort - which is good, because novelty is usually bad. Toni > > And who described it > > as Jung did? True we have some knowledge of what we meant by personal > > unconsciousnes, but not much and only shortly before him. > > > > In fact, Dan, you, who says we can't pick and chose parts to agree with and > > parts to ignore in Jung's writing, does just that. > > If you take the body of his work you will find opposition to what you write > > here. > > No, I don't intend to quote chapter and verse.I just wonder how do you > > separate what Jung said to what " he actually wrote? > Dan > Well, as I have said, I don't see where Jung contradicts me, esp. with respect to the political. The " body of his work, " as far as I can see, draws a > sharp distinction between the individual and the collective, and further urther distinction between various classes of individual. > Regards, > Dan Nobody has read Plato anymore - you haven't either (to a reporter). But he is one of the ones who has come closest to the truth. " > CGJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2003 Report Share Posted February 26, 2003 Dear Toni, Vienna wrote: > Dear Dan, > > You know you never answer my remarks about the hubris of the present > generations who think they can figure out anything and then understand it, > purely intellectually. Why is that, do you suppose? I intend to. It requires a little time and work, and I don't have much time this week. The short answer is that your remarks constitute something of a red herring - what is " purely intellectually? " Yes, of course, the intellect is the faculty of knowledge, the power by which one knows. I assume that no one questions that saying, " I just feel that such and such is true " is the same thing as saying, " I don't know. " That is not to say, however, that one may ignore the non-thinking functions in deciding how to act - or, in other words, that is not to say that the other psychic functions may be ignored in the political arena. Anyone who says that they can does not have knowledge - intellectual knowledge - of human nature or human things. This is, I think, what Jung is on about when he complains of the limitations of " rationalism. " He refers to certain thinkers - moderns, and especially modern scientists - who say, in effect, that the political problem would be solved if human beings would just act " rationally. " The problem is, it is not in human nature for people en-masse to act rationally in this way, and anyone who says otherwise is himself not acting rationally, due presumably to his or her failure to achieve and adequate intellectual understanding of the immutable facts of human nature. One example of the sort of " rationalistically " irrational, idealistic view of which I am speaking is contained in Skinner's _Walden Two_. I am sure that you can think of a billion others. When Jung inveighs against " rationalism, " he refers to the peculiarly modern version of rationalism (which really isn't very rational at all), especially as applied to human affairs. He does not intend to reject, for example, Plato's rationalism, which is quite different and which Jung appears to accept. I can make this argument at some length, but I can't do it now. I will say that the most ambitious effort to date to put into practice that sort of " rationalism " which Jung does wholeheartedly reject was reflected in the spectacularly unsuccessful Soviet experiment, and the most vigorous proponent of that " rationalism " was Stalin. This is what Jung was on about. Jung did not, by his critique of rationalism, mean that navel gazing was somehow a " just as valid " via to the truth as is thinking. Much of what Jung is all about is a rejection of modernity and of modern notions of " progress, " to the degree to which such rejection is possible. It seems that no one wants to hear that thesis, but the textual evidence for it is quite substantial. > > > You wrote > " To the degree that the unconscious is collective as opposed to merely > personal, one can read about it in books - it has been written about, by > Jung > > and others. To the degree that it is " personal " - that it requires a > personal " journey " (as it is called in these parts, rather preciously imo) - > > well, yes, but one still requires the map, no? Jung said of his own books > that yes, he knew they were thick, but one must read them. " > > >What Jung wrote about the collective unconscious he did not get out of a > book. I expect that even he started with books - but let us say for the sake of argument that he (re)discovered it all by his lonesome. Jung was Jung, the best mind of the century. Even if he did, do you think that that means that we could do it? > And neither you nor I will have a clue, of what it could mean in our > lives until we experience it just as he did. Rubbish. If I know nothing of Zurich, and you show me where it is on a map, and how to get there, I now know something of Zurich, even if I have never been there. If I read 100 books about Zurich, I now know quite a bit about Zurich, even if I have never " experienced " it or " lived " it. I may even know quite a few things about it that people who have lived there all their lives do not know. > > I can tell you how wonderful a cold beer is on a hot night, but until you > sip it yourself, you will have a fact, but no real experience. That may be true, but without somebody to tell me about the beer and point me toward the refrigerator, I will never experience it (and how do I know if what you give me is really beer? Maybe it's something else.) Facts are beautiful things. I'd happily trade a truck load of " experiences " for a handful. I'd rather know than do, but I'm sure that's just me. > > I have a marvelous new book I just started called " the Mythological > Unconscious " by Vannoy ,copyright 2001, Karnac Books, London. > He is (obviously) a Jungian analyst. So far I haven't read more than100 or > so pages, he has been dwelling on the dreams of others which deal with > Greek. Mythology. He can write about what he was told by the dreamer, but > it will not be a personal experience because the " feeling tone " of the dream > cannot really be communicated. He does give examples from Jung and others on > how the dream might be interpreted, but he knows as well as Jung, that > unless it resonates with the dreamer, the interpretation of the dream in not > right. Unless one undergoes analysis, one has to figure out one's own > dreams.... a great reason for analysis. > > The unconscious is structured like a myth or myths, as any good Jungian > knows.So an education on the subject of world myths is necessary, especially > for analysts who will amplify dreams. You can read about the dreams of > others, the archetypes they meet, the situations they describe , but you > have not met those archetypes except in your own unconscious. So, yes, Jung > can write about the dreams of others and their mythological meanings...that > won't help as a compensation for you the reader, only you the dreamer. > To experience the collective unconscious you have to have your own dreams, > imagination or fantasy. Reading about the experience of others is a head > trip, your map, I suppose you think, but it won't get you from here to > there. > It is your imagination that needs a work out, if the concept of the > " collective unconscious " and all its inhabitants will ever be conscious to > you. > > I like a quote he quotes from Hillman; > " Mythology is the psychology of antiquity. Psychology is a mythology of > modernity. " Mythology may indeed be part of the psychology of antiquity, but it needs to be " unpacked " by psychology (or by something). Otherwise it remains, as you say just a production of the unconscious - part (as I would say) of the psychic Disneyland. As for psychology being mere mythology, well - if that's all it is, then it is ipso facto not a science, so, frankly, who needs it? > > > We are lucky we have Jung's experiences to get an idea of how it works. but > he had to use his own experiences to find out how it works. He says we have > to use active imagination as well as dreams. The images, the non ego images > we imagine ,are to be considered reality. Well, yes - real images. > Then we can use them in whatever > way our imagination leads. Unless we are willing to accept these images as > real, the whole process will not work. And unless we are willing to take > this journey in imagination, dreams and fantasy, the journey of the hero- > separation,initiation and return,-we will not individuate. It is following > our destiny, and as Jung wrote: " a mighty hand guides us without fail to our > destiny " ( CW4) > > It was Jung who called it a journey, " precious or not " and it does involve > the collective unconscious and not just our personal unconscious. You can't > read about your personal journey, your archetypes and your images in > books.It will have to be dug out of the collective unconscious .It has to be > lived, not studied in a book. I primarily interested in the collective " journey. " I am primarily interested in man as man, not Dan as Dan. If that means that I don't individuate, so be it (although I do think that a better understanding of man as man can hardly help but improve me, as well). > > > Got to get in there and get your hands dirty, digging. There is no other > way. And there is no map.We must draw our own. This is where we disagree. There are all sorts of maps. To change the metaphor, it would be a waste of time and imo the height of folly to reinvent the wheel. Every time that I have been tempted to imagine that I somehow stumbled across terra incognito (talk about your inflation!), I have quickly found the footprints of my betters all over the place. I am now too old to waste anymore time with narcissistic wanking - if I want to learn anything, it will be necessary for me to follow the guides. Possibly you are more clever, and can do it on your own - I can't. As they say in Lake Woebegone, sumus quod sumus. Regards Dan > > > Toni > > Re: human science > > > Dear Toni, > > > > Vienna wrote: > > > How often does Jung you write about the fact that self-knowledge isn't > > > simply the knowledge of our conscious self? You can study that if you > can > > > call that study. But most of you is unconscious, and that too is part of > > > " you " , but it is impossible to " study " . You cannot, as you know, dig > through > > > your unconscious at will and " study' it > > > > To the degree that the unconscious is collective as opposed to merely > personal, one can read about it in books - it has been written about, by > Jung > > and others. To the degree that it is " personal " - that it requires a > personal " journey " (as it is called in these parts, rather preciously imo) - > > well, yes, but one still requires the map, no? Jung said of his own books > that yes, he knew they were thick, but one must read them. > that inflation we all exhibit when we think or say we " know > > > ourselves " . we actually know very little....especially what we are > capable > > > of. > I consider this(world government) to be the > > > worst possible outcome, compared to which a series of hellish > > > > nuclear wars that reduce the human population to a small fraction of > > > itself and leave much of the earth a smoldering, poisonous ruin for > > > centuries is > > > > greatly to be preferred.) " > > > > > > Could you possibly be wrong, do you think? I do not mean today, but at > some > > > time in the future when the majority is more conscious? You leave us in > the > > > current state , but mankind may advance consciously a tiny bit at a > time. > > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > > H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2003 Report Share Posted February 26, 2003 Dear Dan, You know you never answer my remarks about the hubris of the present generations who think they can figure out anything and then understand it, purely intellectually. Why is that, do you suppose? You wrote " To the degree that the unconscious is collective as opposed to merely personal, one can read about it in books - it has been written about, by Jung > and others. To the degree that it is " personal " - that it requires a personal " journey " (as it is called in these parts, rather preciously imo) - > well, yes, but one still requires the map, no? Jung said of his own books that yes, he knew they were thick, but one must read them. " >What Jung wrote about the collective unconscious he did not get out of a book. And neither you nor I will have a clue, of what it could mean in our lives until we experience it just as he did. I can tell you how wonderful a cold beer is on a hot night, but until you sip it yourself, you will have a fact, but no real experience. I have a marvelous new book I just started called " the Mythological Unconscious " by Vannoy ,copyright 2001, Karnac Books, London. He is (obviously) a Jungian analyst. So far I haven't read more than100 or so pages, he has been dwelling on the dreams of others which deal with Greek. Mythology. He can write about what he was told by the dreamer, but it will not be a personal experience because the " feeling tone " of the dream cannot really be communicated. He does give examples from Jung and others on how the dream might be interpreted, but he knows as well as Jung, that unless it resonates with the dreamer, the interpretation of the dream in not right. Unless one undergoes analysis, one has to figure out one's own dreams.... a great reason for analysis. The unconscious is structured like a myth or myths, as any good Jungian knows.So an education on the subject of world myths is necessary, especially for analysts who will amplify dreams. You can read about the dreams of others, the archetypes they meet, the situations they describe , but you have not met those archetypes except in your own unconscious. So, yes, Jung can write about the dreams of others and their mythological meanings...that won't help as a compensation for you the reader, only you the dreamer. To experience the collective unconscious you have to have your own dreams, imagination or fantasy. Reading about the experience of others is a head trip, your map, I suppose you think, but it won't get you from here to there. It is your imagination that needs a work out, if the concept of the " collective unconscious " and all its inhabitants will ever be conscious to you. I like a quote he quotes from Hillman; " Mythology is the psychology of antiquity. Psychology is a mythology of modernity. " We are lucky we have Jung's experiences to get an idea of how it works. but he had to use his own experiences to find out how it works. He says we have to use active imagination as well as dreams. The images, the non ego images we imagine ,are to be considered reality. Then we can use them in whatever way our imagination leads. Unless we are willing to accept these images as real, the whole process will not work. And unless we are willing to take this journey in imagination, dreams and fantasy, the journey of the hero- separation,initiation and return,-we will not individuate. It is following our destiny, and as Jung wrote: " a mighty hand guides us without fail to our destiny " ( CW4) It was Jung who called it a journey, " precious or not " and it does involve the collective unconscious and not just our personal unconscious. You can't read about your personal journey, your archetypes and your images in books.It will have to be dug out of the collective unconscious .It has to be lived, not studied in a book. Got to get in there and get your hands dirty, digging. There is no other way. And there is no map.We must draw our own. Toni Re: human science > Dear Toni, > > Vienna wrote: > > How often does Jung you write about the fact that self-knowledge isn't > > simply the knowledge of our conscious self? You can study that if you can > > call that study. But most of you is unconscious, and that too is part of > > " you " , but it is impossible to " study " . You cannot, as you know, dig through > > your unconscious at will and " study' it > > To the degree that the unconscious is collective as opposed to merely personal, one can read about it in books - it has been written about, by Jung > and others. To the degree that it is " personal " - that it requires a personal " journey " (as it is called in these parts, rather preciously imo) - > well, yes, but one still requires the map, no? Jung said of his own books that yes, he knew they were thick, but one must read them. that inflation we all exhibit when we think or say we " know > > ourselves " . we actually know very little....especially what we are capable > > of. I consider this(world government) to be the > > worst possible outcome, compared to which a series of hellish > > > nuclear wars that reduce the human population to a small fraction of > > itself and leave much of the earth a smoldering, poisonous ruin for > > centuries is > > > greatly to be preferred.) " > > > > Could you possibly be wrong, do you think? I do not mean today, but at some > > time in the future when the majority is more conscious? You leave us in the > > current state , but mankind may advance consciously a tiny bit at a time. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2003 Report Share Posted February 26, 2003 Dan, all, " Intellectual knowledge " is a prosaic, generic term. In cognitive psychology knowledge is assimilated by our intelligence. Persons have many adaptable and flexible modes of intelligence, as Sternberg, Gardner and others have pointed out. These modes are often referred to constituting the repertoire of the faculty of intelligence. Jung held no brief for the superiority of any one function of his typology. In actual application the differences between what feels right and what is thought correct may be decisive, but both are rational functions. If you tell me you can know about Zurich by doing a little research, that is right enough, but if you tell me that by doing this research you know Zurich, my thinking function will say you are incorrect about this. You haven't been to Zurich, how then could you know it? Likewise, if you read music you can sing -in your head- a Mozart sonata. Yet you won't know the sonata unless you hear it; better: you won't know it comprehensively until you play it...correctly. These are conundrums of cognitive psychology and the psychology of learning. However, they've been explicated; roughly, there is extension and intention. Learning is a matter of accommodation and assimilation in both the internalized and externalized dimensions. (Refer to Piaget, Lewin, Kolb, et al.) This is true whether you go to Zurich or read about Zurich in a book. After all you experience the book just as you would experience Zurich in the flesh. All learning is based in experience of some sort and due to one mode, or a blend of the modes of intelligence. *** Psychologists and philosophers have parsed these modes any number of ways. For example, Säljö, suggested that knowledge can result from acquisition, memorization, skill-making, sense-making, interpretation, and abstraction. The philosopher Gilbert Ryle wrote of a bifurcated conception of knowledge acquisition: between " knowing that, " and, " knowing how " . Today, no single conception offers the complete picture, so there are, basically, theories having to do with learning framed by behavioral, cognitive, humanistic, and situational orientations. That's just how it is in psychology - today. But, there is no learning possible without experience; without, in the technical lingo, cognition and (ap)prehension of data. regards, I want to talk about learning. But not the lifeless, sterile, futile, quickly forgotten stuff that is crammed in to the mind of the poor helpless individual tied into his seat by ironclad bonds of conformity! I am talking about LEARNING - the insatiable curiosity that drives the adolescent boy to absorb everything he can see or hear or read about gasoline engines in order to improve the efficiency and speed of his 'cruiser'. I am talking about the student who says, " I am discovering, drawing in from the outside, and making that which is drawn in a real part of me. " I am talking about any learning in which the experience of the learner progresses along this line: " No, no, that's not what I want " ; " Wait! This is closer to what I am interested in, what I need " ; " Ah, here it is! Now I'm grasping and comprehending what I need and what I want to know! " Carl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2003 Report Share Posted February 27, 2003 dan, i think u wld enjoy figg newton's tale in THE BEEJUM BOOK! 2 univ profs are reading it to their science class. yhe bk is full of jung in disguise. love ao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2003 Report Share Posted February 27, 2003 Dear Dan, As for your idea of a " red herring " ; Jung, CW 18 " The needful thing is not to know the truth but to experience it, Not to have an intellectual conception of things, but to find our way to the inner and perhaps wordless irrational experience. That is the great problem. " If that needs further explaining: From Aion: " The function of value-feeling is an integral part of our conscious orientation and ought not to be missing in a psychological judgment of any scope, otherwise the model we are trying to build of the real process will be incomplete. *** Every process has a value quality attached to it, namely feeling tone. This indicates the degree to which the subject is affected...that the subject becomes involved and so comes to feel the whole weight of reality. " ...... The difference amounts roughly to that between severe illness which one reads about in a book and one's own illness. The intellectual approach alone does not make for a " whole " person. Ego is not our only center .. " I have suggested calling the total personality which though present cannot be fully known, the self. The ego is by definition subordinate to the self, and is related to it as part to the whole. But just as our free will clashes with necessity in the outside world, so also it finds its limits outside the field of consciousness in the subjective inner world where it comes into conflict with the facts of the self. " You are sure entitled to your interpretation of what Jung means, but I suggest that is pure rationalization of a fact, which you do not wish to encounter. There are literally hundreds of places where there is a warning of the effect of pure intellectualism on each ego, which of course turns into inflation.This is a problem unique to modern man who thinks he can understand everything and thereby be in control. Jung says that over and over. The whole process of individuation is a coming together of ego(consciousness) and Self( unconsciousness). Self, Jung maintains is " a representation of something present in all living creatures. An inborn archetype, a primordial image . If ego identifies with the self , the result is neurosis because it creates a force ,of subjective factor which becomes concentrated on the ego and produces boundless power complex and factious eccentricity. " " The union of opposites is equivalent to unconsciousness so far as human logic goes, for consciousness presupposes a differentiation between subject and object and a relation between them. When there is no " other " or it does not yet exist, all possibility of consciousness ceases " (Aion) Dan, Jung objects to a purely conscious ego driven rationalism. If one does not take the unconscious into partnership, one's complexes and one's feelings , for instance, one is a one sided individual who will end up with a huge power problem. That is what he says. For one thing he will not be a " conscious " individual. Thinking with soul is deadly. As far as dreams are concerned, again you think that all one must do is " know " myths Again just the ego. And which one of us does not face the danger of interpreting a dream the way we think, or would want it to go? Jung says the " feeling tone " is absolutely necessary for the process. That helps of course.But our subjectivity can easily get in the way. You said: " Well, yes - real images. " .. Equivocation again. Something is real or it isn't. Everything the psyche " sees " is images. Even the ego is an image.(Who I imagine myself to be). As a matter of fact, the image is the psyche. All non ego images are in the unconscious.The unconscious gives us alternate perspectives, and these emerge from the unconscious.( active imagination)Then they become real to us. Psychic reality is what is real. But as long as we believe we are responsible for everything in our psyche's we will think we put it there so it is all only our thoughts . " As long as ego thinks that everything in the psyche is his own making-that his psyche is all made up, the person will suffer from " G-d almightiness'. " We think we have made up everything , invented everything psychical...we think nothing would be done if we didn't do it. That, as Murray Stein says is an extraordinary assumption. In fact, as you know, 'the psyche is not just a product of personal experience. It also has a pre-personal, or transpersonal dimension-which is manifested in universal patterns and images found in all the world's religions and myths.' Therefore: images are our reality. We do not make them up ourselves alone.They cannot just be ignored as something " made-up " Are you and I reading the same Jung? I feel I have to quote for you so you will realize I am referring to Jung's own words, not my " interpretation " you wrote: I primarily interested in the collective " journey. " I am primarily interested in man as man, not Dan as Dan. If that means that I don't individuate, > so be it (although I do think that a better understanding of man as man can hardly help but improve me, as well). .. My question of course is, how can you better understand " man " if you do not understand yourself? I doubt there is a collective journey anyway. If you are part of the participation mystique, you are already there. Whether you personally decide to go or not go is your decision. Just don't blow smoke about " collective journeys you said: " it will be necessary for me to follow the guides. Possibly you are more clever, and can do it on your own - I can't. " The guides lead only so far, there is little risk in taking someone else's way, but in the end you will have to go it alone " I can't " won't do it.. If you don't accept the suffering involved willingly, you will still have to go through it. The journey involves suffering. Life involves suffering. No way around it. All of us start off with guides. We accept or reject them, or ignore them as we live.We have a lot to learn from those that went before. It would be foolish not to benefit from anything we can grasp.. I for one read and think constantly about those. But in the end, my friend, we have to risk it all. No more footprints to follow, we have to leave them behind, or we will never really " know " . Numinous experiences do not come collectively...or rarely. Reason fails,language fails, we become inarticulate. The numinous comes from the objective psyche, to us as individuals . It has nothing to do with cleverness, as you really do know.Courage maybe, it does have to do with a relationship, an inner dialogue at the beginning....leading to ?. It has to do with trust, and hope and love, and a deep yearning. This, is what makes it a lonely path. How can you be a hero marching along with the crowd ? Who will slay your dragon and face your fear? This is your idea of " narcisstic wanking " ? So, don't reinvent the wheel. Take it from others. But where you go with it is up to you. Don't want to get your hands dirty, or sweat in fear and exertion?. Fine. You have much more of a faith in the authority of others than I do, for one.. Let them do the hard work and just tell you how to ride piggyback. It may well be enough for you. If you don't climb up the mountain yourself, however,you cannot enjoy the view. It is, I must be truthful, in my opinion not the way to individuation or wholeness or dare i say it...holiness. Toni snip > Toni > > And neither you nor I will have a clue, of what it could mean in our > > lives until we experience it just as he did. > Dan: > Rubbish. If I know nothing of Zurich, and you show me where it is on a map, and how to get there, I now know something of Zurich, even if I have never > been there. If I read 100 books about Zurich, I now know quite a bit about Zurich, even if I have never " experienced " it or " lived " it. I may even > know quite a few things about it that people who have lived there all their lives do not know. >> That may be true, but without somebody to tell me about the beer and point me toward the refrigerator, I will never experience it (and how do I know > if what you give me is really beer? Maybe it's something else.) > > Facts are beautiful things. I'd happily trade a truck load of " experiences " for a handful. I'd rather know than do, but I'm sure that's just me. d. He does give examples from Jung and others on > > how the dream might be interpreted, but he knows as well as Jung, that > > unless it resonates with the dreamer, the interpretation of the dream in not > > right. Unless one undergoes analysis, one has to figure out one's own > > dreams.... a great reason for analysis. > > > > The unconscious is structured like a myth or myths, as any good Jungian > > knows.So an education on the subject of world myths is necessary, especially > > for analysts who will amplify dreams. You can read about the dreams of > > others, the archetypes they meet, the situations they describe , but you > > have not met those archetypes except in your own unconscious. So, yes, Jung > > can write about the dreams of others and their mythological meanings...that > > won't help as a compensation for you the reader, only you the dreamer. > > To experience the collective unconscious you have to have your own dreams, > > imagination or fantasy. Reading about the experience of others is a head > > trip, your map, I suppose you think, but it won't get you from here to > > there. > > It is your imagination that needs a work out, if the concept of the > > " collective unconscious " and all its inhabitants will ever be conscious to > > you. > > > > I like a quote he quotes from Hillman; > > " Mythology is the psychology of antiquity. Psychology is a mythology of > > modernity. " > Dan, > Mythology may indeed be part of the psychology of antiquity, but it needs to be " unpacked " by psychology (or by something). Otherwise it remains, as > you say just a production of the unconscious - part (as I would say) of the psychic Disneyland. As for psychology being mere mythology, well - if that's all it is, then it is ipso facto not a science, so, frankly, who needs it? > >Toni We are lucky we have Jung's experiences to get an idea of how it works. but > > he had to use his own experiences to find out how it works. He says we have > > to use active imagination as well as dreams. The images, the non ego images > > we imagine ,are to be considered reality. > > Well, yes - real images. > > Toni > > Then we can use them in whatever > > way our imagination leads. Unless we are willing to accept these images as > > real, the whole process will not work. And unless we are willing to take > > this journey in imagination, dreams and fantasy, the journey of the hero- > > separation,initiation and return,-we will not individuate. It is following > > our destiny, and as Jung wrote: " a mighty hand guides us without fail to our > > destiny " ( CW4) > > > > It was Jung who called it a journey, " precious or not " and it does involve > > the collective unconscious and not just our personal unconscious. You can't > > read about your personal journey, your archetypes and your images in > > books.It will have to be dug out of the collective unconscious .It has to be > > lived, not studied in a book. > Dan > I primarily interested in the collective " journey. " I am primarily interested in man as man, not Dan as Dan. If that means that I don't individuate, > so be it (although I do think that a better understanding of man as man can hardly help but improve me, as well). Toni Got to get in there and get your hands dirty, digging. There is no other > > way. And there is no map.We must draw our own. Dan,> This is where we disagree. There are all sorts of maps. To change the metaphor, it would be a waste of time and imo the height of folly to reinvent > the wheel. Every time that I have been tempted to imagine that I somehow stumbled across terra incognito (talk about your inflation!), I have quickly > found the footprints of my betters all over the place. I am now too old to waste anymore time with narcissistic wanking - if I want to learn anything, > it will be necessary for me to follow the guides. Possibly you are more clever, and can do it on your own - I can't. As they say in Lake Woebegone, > sumus quod sumus. > > Regards > > Dan > > > > > > > Toni > > > > Re: human science > > > > > Dear Toni, > > > > > > Vienna wrote: > > > > How often does Jung you write about the fact that self-knowledge isn't > > > > simply the knowledge of our conscious self? You can study that if you > > can > > > > call that study. But most of you is unconscious, and that too is part of > > > > " you " , but it is impossible to " study " . You cannot, as you know, dig > > through > > > > your unconscious at will and " study' it > > > > > > To the degree that the unconscious is collective as opposed to merely > > personal, one can read about it in books - it has been written about, by > > Jung > > > and others. To the degree that it is " personal " - that it requires a > > personal " journey " (as it is called in these parts, rather preciously imo) - > > > well, yes, but one still requires the map, no? Jung said of his own books > > that yes, he knew they were thick, but one must read them. > > that inflation we all exhibit when we think or say we " know > > > > ourselves " . we actually know very little....especially what we are > > capable > > > > of. > > I consider this(world government) to be the > > > > worst possible outcome, compared to which a series of hellish > > > > > nuclear wars that reduce the human population to a small fraction of > > > > itself and leave much of the earth a smoldering, poisonous ruin for > > > > centuries is > > > > > greatly to be preferred.) " > > > > > > > > Could you possibly be wrong, do you think? I do not mean today, but at > > some > > > > time in the future when the majority is more conscious? You leave us in > > the > > > > current state , but mankind may advance consciously a tiny bit at a > > time. > > > > > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > > > > H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2003 Report Share Posted February 28, 2003 Dan, The trickster is at it again. I left out a word and said the opposite of what I meant. I wrote: Thinking with soul is deadly. I obviously mean " thinking without soul is deadly " damn that trickster, antway. Toni Re: human science > > > > > > > Dear Toni, > > > > > > > > Vienna wrote: > > > > > How often does Jung you write about the fact that self-knowledge > isn't > > > > > simply the knowledge of our conscious self? You can study that if > you > > > can > > > > > call that study. But most of you is unconscious, and that too is > part of > > > > > " you " , but it is impossible to " study " . You cannot, as you know, dig > > > through > > > > > your unconscious at will and " study' it > > > > > > > > To the degree that the unconscious is collective as opposed to merely > > > personal, one can read about it in books - it has been written about, by > > > Jung > > > > and others. To the degree that it is " personal " - that it requires a > > > personal " journey " (as it is called in these parts, rather preciously > imo) - > > > > well, yes, but one still requires the map, no? Jung said of his own > books > > > that yes, he knew they were thick, but one must read them. > > > that inflation we all exhibit when we think or say we " know > > > > > ourselves " . we actually know very little....especially what we are > > > capable > > > > > of. > > > I consider this(world government) to be the > > > > > worst possible outcome, compared to which a series of hellish > > > > > > nuclear wars that reduce the human population to a small fraction > of > > > > > itself and leave much of the earth a smoldering, poisonous ruin for > > > > > centuries is > > > > > > greatly to be preferred.) " > > > > > > > > > > Could you possibly be wrong, do you think? I do not mean today, but > at > > > some > > > > > time in the future when the majority is more conscious? You leave > us in > > > the > > > > > current state , but mankind may advance consciously a tiny bit at a > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby > beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and > suffering. " > > > > > > H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2003 Report Share Posted February 28, 2003 Toni, Dan, , all, Wonderful post full of reminders about the functions behind the process of coming to even a little greater consciousness. I'd add that the *direction* proven by my own experience is *inside*. ...the inner work. You write, >that is pure rationalization of a fact, which you do not wish to >encounter. I don't wish to make a value judgement as you do here. Even the purest of philosophies has to obtain some standard. Many great philosophers, (Kant for example,) have themselves weighed in on the matter of our reflective nature, and, no doubt, the history of philosophy is concerned in part with truth, what is true, and how do we know something is true. Yet, we don't, after several thousand years, have a clear and veracious and axiomatic structure that is wide-ranging enough to make a project about the truths behind human psychology even begin to approach a comprehensive, (let alone true,) philosophy. Many smart folks have made the attempt and made very little progress. Philosophy is undermined by this psychological nature of ours. (Ironically, the law of the jungle is today supposed as the sociobiological framework. How odd that sociobiology has uncovered nothing on the order of extensible (thus viable,) objective propositions, and so is forced to make up stories to argue for the imperatives of biology. It's -logically- a bankrupt and not very rational approach; still, those stories are a kind of mythology, and are very interesting to me because they suggest the psychology of the investigator has gotten in the way. Sociobiology may be thought of as a saturnian conceit...a kind of father complex. How funny it is, then, that the supposedly rational arguments of sociobiology are completely circular! ...the masculine intellect going around in circles!) *** You write, >Therefore: images are our reality. We do not make them up ourselves >alone. They cannot just be ignored as something " made-up " We don't even know if this is absolutely true. (As you've stated, there aren't any absolute psychological truths. I don't know if there or not.) *** , you write, " When " irrational " experience occurs during analysis every bit of rationality you can muster will be useful in processing it. " I don't have my own experience via analysis to refer to, but, I would note from my own experience that the there is a bit of processing that can be done right on the other side, a side a little beyond rationality, (rationality in the sense of a logical reasoning from propositions). The limits of one logic meet up with the irrationality of the so-called next logic. A good example would be meditation. As the Buddhist master suggested to Jung, 'you're too objective'. Jung's subject/object perspective was not commensurate with his being able to understand non-duality. Jung was imprisoned by his own logic in this particular case. (This also points in the direction of experience beyond the images of the psyche too.) Meditation offers a different kind of logic. The constraints imposed by our rationality is the starting point for many kinds of mentally-oriented yogas. So, for example, the Sufi master hopes to provide the structure through which the student may experience the limits of his or her own logic, a logic which to the teacher is a matter of habit and conditioning. Thus, a teacher may point out the obvious: " how remarkable it is that what you take to be true is so in sympathy with your preconceptions! " This simple problem is, as they say, the *rub*. regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2003 Report Share Posted February 28, 2003 Dear , Nothing I say or could say is " absolutely true " Haven't you heard me on the subject of 'absolute truth " ? Like Jung I believe it exists, but we human beings can not know it. I never never, well, since middle age, ever tried to tell someone " this is absolutely true " . With all the hubris in my fingertips, even I would not dare make such a statement. I know you are a devotee of Eastern meditation. After trying it, I found I was like Jung, unable to find it the way I wanted to meditate. I agree with him in his ideas( to be wary of trying to remain in the unconscious) because I too found it to be that way for me I am all for " be still and know that I am G-d " form of prayer, which is in the western tradition. I don't find I use logic or much thinking in my type of meditation.Love, trust and hope are really not logical .. I am not speaking of the meditation which is non spiritual and can help healing and stress. That is a great help to me. As far as value judgments, Dan and I have been circling around each for years. Whatever judgment I make are not written in concrete and Dan knows I sometimes get so wrought up when I reply to him, I am liable to say almost anything. Besides, having said all this...I do make judgments always realizing that there is absolutely nothing final, and knowing well how wrong I could be.If I were not convinced my opinion was close to what is my truth, I would not have bothered answering. Were I to become what I want to be,I would never bother trying to convince anyone. I am still a missionary at heart, even though I am now very aware of this fault of mine. It is hard as an old lady to forgo the " teacher " , " missionary " in me. I used to want to convert everybody. I am slowly changing that. Please see my other post of today Toni Re: human science > Toni, Dan, , all, > > Wonderful post full of reminders about the functions behind the > process of coming to even a little greater consciousness. I'd add > that the *direction* proven by my own experience is *inside*. ...the > inner work. > > You write, > > >that is pure rationalization of a fact, which you do not wish to > >encounter. > > I don't wish to make a value judgement as you do here. Even the > purest of philosophies has to obtain some standard. Many great > philosophers, (Kant for example,) have themselves weighed in on the > matter of our reflective nature, and, no doubt, the history of > philosophy is concerned in part with truth, what is true, and how do > we know something is true. Yet, we don't, after several thousand > years, have a clear and veracious and axiomatic structure that is > wide-ranging enough to make a project about the truths behind human > psychology even begin to approach a comprehensive, (let alone true,) > philosophy. Many smart folks have made the attempt and made very > little progress. Philosophy is undermined by this psychological > nature of ours. > > (Ironically, the law of the jungle is today supposed as the > sociobiological framework. How odd that sociobiology has uncovered > nothing on the order of extensible (thus viable,) objective > propositions, and so is forced to make up stories to argue for the > imperatives of biology. It's -logically- a bankrupt and not very > rational approach; still, those stories are a kind of mythology, and > are very interesting to me because they suggest the psychology of the > investigator has gotten in the way. Sociobiology may be thought of as > a saturnian conceit...a kind of father complex. How funny it is, > then, that the supposedly rational arguments of sociobiology are > completely circular! ...the masculine intellect going around in > circles!) > > *** > > You write, > > >Therefore: images are our reality. We do not make them up ourselves > >alone. They cannot just be ignored as something " made-up " > > We don't even know if this is absolutely true. (As you've stated, > there aren't any absolute psychological truths. I don't know if there > or not.) > > *** > > , you write, " When " irrational " experience occurs during analysis > every bit of rationality you can muster will be useful in processing > it. " > > I don't have my own experience via analysis to refer to, but, I would > note from my own experience that the there is a bit of processing > that can be done right on the other side, a side a little beyond > rationality, (rationality in the sense of a logical reasoning from > propositions). The limits of one logic meet up with the irrationality > of the so-called next logic. > > A good example would be meditation. As the Buddhist master suggested > to Jung, 'you're too objective'. Jung's subject/object perspective > was not commensurate with his being able to understand non-duality. > Jung was imprisoned by his own logic in this particular case. (This > also points in the direction of experience beyond the images of the > psyche too.) Meditation offers a different kind of logic. > > The constraints imposed by our rationality is the starting point for > many kinds of mentally-oriented yogas. So, for example, the Sufi > master hopes to provide the structure through which the student may > experience the limits of his or her own logic, a logic which to the > teacher is a matter of habit and conditioning. > > Thus, a teacher may point out the obvious: " how remarkable it is that > what you take to be true is so in sympathy with your preconceptions! " > > This simple problem is, as they say, the *rub*. > > regards, > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2003 Report Share Posted February 28, 2003 Toni, I was unclear. Words, y'know? >I don't find I >use logic or much thinking in my type of meditation.Love, trust and hope are >really not logical What I intended to say is: such modes (?) suppose a different " logic " . In fact, for me, to think of them in terms of what is commonly held to be logical thinking would be illogical thinking! The " logic of meditation " may just as well be a kind of oxymoron. On the other hand, the logic of one level may be impossible to apply on the next, or another, level. That was problem-making for Jung in his encounter with Buddhism. More practically, Einstein rings true enough about this: 'a problem cannot be solved on the level it was created on' ...(or something to that effect). regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2003 Report Share Posted March 1, 2003 Greg, all, My head is swimming with thoughts, ha! m'darn heart! (Feeling type y'know.) They basically fall into heads and tails. Heads. I think at times, speaking for myself, the tenor of my responses is a bit unfair to Dan. (Hi, Dan) Also, my own responses might set up a projection upon Dan, and then beat around this straw man. I recognize that this is possible if I hold any single framing too strongly and then use it to objectify somebody else. This is done unconsciously, yet, it happens. Alas, the analytic psychology at times provides just this kind of facilitation. As it is said, Jungians have Jungian dreams, and true enough, sometimes we also see the world as a Jungian world; our rose coloured glasses... This is okay, really, as long as I know I've got those darn glasses on! At other times my own complex won't allow me to touch my hands to my face to see what eyeware I'm wearing. *** The fault line between what is generally referred to as traditionalism and everything else, (including modernism,) is longstanding. It's a respectable perspective. It's very controversial too. I don't find Dan represents his point of view in quite the terms of various traditionalists, yet, the idea that the unfolding of the human world has deviated from the abiding truths of a past and rigorous tradition is neither novel or undistinguished. One aspect of the battle across this faultline is the reply of traditionalists, (not of the ilk of Dan et al,) to their critics. Roughly this reply states the following: you cannot rationally criticize the tradition using the very deviation to this tradition that is supposed by it to be a dangerous accretion. In other words, a traditionalist speaks one language and rebuffs the criticism, criticism itself couched in the very language found by them to be a severe problem, as being illogical because the criticism is itself a matter of deviation. I may be mistaken, but this same problem of communication could apply to the dialogue with Dan. We are speaking different languages. *** It then becomes a mistake to psychologize this affair. To do this is unfair. Just as it is in a personal relationship, the other person has to be willing to be psychologized. As I've long maintained, one can't have it both ways. If all there is is the diverse experience of everybody then it becomes a projection when we say this is true, and yet go on to characterize others as living in our own Jungian world. Personally, I think we do live in some ways in such a world. The analytic psychology is correct in some ways as a model of human nature. It partly gets right aspects of the universal human nature. It is absolutely true perhaps inasmuch as it does. *But*, unless one is willing to admit up front this is a universal framing, it is unfair psychologizing to project it upon another person. (I probably will be misunderstood on this point. I'm sorry too; I don't mean to patronize anybody.) What provoked me to state my own view on this matter again was the over-generalized characterization of the intellectual approach. This was one reason I pointed out previously that in other framings our mental functioning is framed in terms much more nuanced and complicated than Jung's own categories. But, I think Dan was subjected to psychologizing, offered via a critique in analytic psychology's terms of what might be called in those same terms, a judgement about Dan's one-sidedness. I think this is very unfair. I would think it better for us to see in what ways our own complexes are activated by Dan, and let Dan deal with his own psychology without our interference, and so allow him to deal with it on his own terms. *** The idea that a person might build up an analytic framework based in certain propositions about the way human nature works and about the ways the social world works has long been a project of philosophy and other fields. It might be problem-filled to a Jungian, but, at least it should be recognized that Jung's own psychological structure is not altogether a different kind of project. It would make no sense for it to be otherwise; the analytic psychology only makes sense if it is concerned with universal features of human nature. Again, other attempts can't be damned in Jungian terms as being antagonistic to, for example, " rationalism " (whatever that means,) when it is completely the case that the analytic psychology itself is a rationalized psychology. For example, the analytic psychology may be suggestive of paradox in certain specifics but it isn't fundamentally illogical. (This isn't to say anything about the kind of mental functioning and experience that produces this psychology. Nor does this throw out the irrational facts of existence. Those facts are part and parcel of the psychology. So, whatever Jung's own personal psychology was, the analytic psychology must transcends Jung.) I'm making here " meta-points " . The analytic psychology is itself embedded in the greater and very diverse field of psychology-at-large. Sometimes it happens that this larger viewpoint is criticized as an error of psychoid functioning. In the terms of the philosophy of science this is called an error of domain. This means for us: the baby is tossed out with the bathwater. There are valid criticisms of Jung made from other perspectives, and, although the psychology of the critic may be interesting in Jungian terms, this psychological argument does not void out the criticism. Any specific criticism may or may not have merit but implying that the critic is one-sided is, basically, changing the subject, and is, to me, unfair psychologizing. Jung himself makes this mistake over and over again. Likewise, persons who criticize analytic psychology due to Jung's psychology being this or that make this same mistake. Tails to follow. regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2003 Report Share Posted March 2, 2003 Dear and all, Calhoun wrote: > Greg, all, > > My head is swimming with thoughts, ha! m'darn heart! (Feeling type > y'know.) They basically fall into heads and tails. > > Heads. I think at times, speaking for myself, the tenor of my > responses is a bit unfair to Dan. (Hi, Dan) Also, my own responses > might set up a projection upon Dan, and then beat around this straw > man. Don't worry about it it, at least not for my sake. What doesn't kill me makes me stronger ;-). I will be back next week some time (I hope) to answer my critics and well-wishers. too buried now. Regards, Dan > I recognize that this is possible if I hold any single framing > too strongly and then use it to objectify somebody else. This is done > unconsciously, yet, it happens. Alas, the analytic psychology at > times provides just this kind of facilitation. As it is said, > Jungians have Jungian dreams, and true enough, sometimes we also see > the world as a Jungian world; our rose coloured glasses... This is > okay, really, as long as I know I've got those darn glasses on! At > other times my own complex won't allow me to touch my hands to my > face to see what eyeware I'm wearing. > > *** > > The fault line between what is generally referred to as > traditionalism and everything else, (including modernism,) is > longstanding. It's a respectable perspective. It's very controversial > too. I don't find Dan represents his point of view in quite the terms > of various traditionalists, yet, the idea that the unfolding of the > human world has deviated from the abiding truths of a past and > rigorous tradition is neither novel or undistinguished. > > One aspect of the battle across this faultline is the reply of > traditionalists, (not of the ilk of Dan et al,) to their critics. > Roughly this reply states the following: you cannot rationally > criticize the tradition using the very deviation to this tradition > that is supposed by it to be a dangerous accretion. In other words, a > traditionalist speaks one language and rebuffs the criticism, > criticism itself couched in the very language found by them to be a > severe problem, as being illogical because the criticism is itself a > matter of deviation. > > I may be mistaken, but this same problem of communication could apply > to the dialogue with Dan. We are speaking different languages. > > *** > > It then becomes a mistake to psychologize this affair. To do this is > unfair. Just as it is in a personal relationship, the other person > has to be willing to be psychologized. As I've long maintained, one > can't have it both ways. If all there is is the diverse experience of > everybody then it becomes a projection when we say this is true, and > yet go on to characterize others as living in our own Jungian world. > > Personally, I think we do live in some ways in such a world. The > analytic psychology is correct in some ways as a model of human > nature. It partly gets right aspects of the universal human nature. > It is absolutely true perhaps inasmuch as it does. *But*, unless one > is willing to admit up front this is a universal framing, it is > unfair psychologizing to project it upon another person. > > (I probably will be misunderstood on this point. I'm sorry too; I > don't mean to patronize anybody.) > > What provoked me to state my own view on this matter again was the > over-generalized characterization of the intellectual approach. This > was one reason I pointed out previously that in other framings our > mental functioning is framed in terms much more nuanced and > complicated than Jung's own categories. > > But, I think Dan was subjected to psychologizing, offered via a > critique in analytic psychology's terms of what might be called in > those same terms, a judgement about Dan's one-sidedness. I think this > is very unfair. I would think it better for us to see in what ways > our own complexes are activated by Dan, and let Dan deal with his own > psychology without our interference, and so allow him to deal with it > on his own terms. > > *** > > The idea that a person might build up an analytic framework based in > certain propositions about the way human nature works and about the > ways the social world works has long been a project of philosophy and > other fields. It might be problem-filled to a Jungian, but, at least > it should be recognized that Jung's own psychological structure is > not altogether a different kind of project. It would make no sense > for it to be otherwise; the analytic psychology only makes sense if > it is concerned with universal features of human nature. Again, other > attempts can't be damned in Jungian terms as being antagonistic to, > for example, " rationalism " (whatever that means,) when it is > completely the case that the analytic psychology itself is a > rationalized psychology. For example, the analytic psychology may be > suggestive of paradox in certain specifics but it isn't fundamentally > illogical. > > (This isn't to say anything about the kind of mental functioning and > experience that produces this psychology. Nor does this throw out the > irrational facts of existence. Those facts are part and parcel of the > psychology. So, whatever Jung's own personal psychology was, the > analytic psychology must transcends Jung.) > > I'm making here " meta-points " . The analytic psychology is itself > embedded in the greater and very diverse field of > psychology-at-large. Sometimes it happens that this larger viewpoint > is criticized as an error of psychoid functioning. In the terms of > the philosophy of science this is called an error of domain. This > means for us: the baby is tossed out with the bathwater. > > There are valid criticisms of Jung made from other perspectives, and, > although the psychology of the critic may be interesting in Jungian > terms, this psychological argument does not void out the criticism. > Any specific criticism may or may not have merit but implying that > the critic is one-sided is, basically, changing the subject, and is, > to me, unfair psychologizing. Jung himself makes this mistake over > and over again. > > Likewise, persons who criticize analytic psychology due to Jung's > psychology being this or that make this same mistake. > > Tails to follow. > > regards, > > > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > > H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2003 Report Share Posted March 3, 2003 In a message dated 3/3/03 12:22:55 AM !!!First Boot!!!, marshkan1@... writes: > " how can we change if we remain the same " . the astrol answer is alchemical! the sameness = the natal cht n its components BUT the psychol processes that start out neg, can thru consc n experience be transmuted to positive. ex: neg saturn=the cruel critic [personification of shadow] wh accepted can bec the wise old man. same planet. each plan has a pos/neg aspect. so the change is w/in the given - a paradox. complexes says jung can be dissolved but must be drunk 'to the very last drop'. gotta go - ad laborem! love ao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.