Guest guest Posted March 3, 2003 Report Share Posted March 3, 2003 In a message dated 3/3/2003 10:15:23 AM Central Standard Time, dwatkins5@... writes: > >Being a WASP is " one leg up " in New England, I agree, but > >drugs and drink and " good ole boy " behavior may do well in Texas but > leave > >the rest of us cold. > > Yet I remain unconvinced that such behavior is restricted to Texans. > And neither is it acceptable to all in Texas. 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 March 3, 2003 Report Share Posted March 3, 2003 Dear , You wrote: > Dan all, > > Wow. We've been in this territory before. It's become a little run > down don't you think? Well, yes. Same questions, same answers, though. > > > Jung writes, > > (snip) > > So this isn't an argument or an answer to my question. It's fitting > some nonsense of Jung's about history into your fixated polemical > riffing. Well, if Jung is capable of nonsense, then I don't know what to say. It makes sense to me. > > > But, as long as you wish to approach it this way, help me understand > to what middle ages Jung refers to here: 12th, 13th, 14th century? To > Europe, Asia, Africa, Indian North America, Australia, South Seas? Europe, clearly ( I doubt that he was referring to the Aztecs, lol). What century? I don't know, he doesn't say, but anywhere from the ninth through the thirteenth, I should think. > > > Come on. Jung here is talking about psychology and recognizing, > (whether he is right or wrong,) that there are times in history when > the overall psychology of persons is close to equilibrium. Well, yes. That's a good thing. > > Unfortunately, the Middle Ages was probably not such a time*. ? The citation you make says the opposite (?). It says what Jung says. (Who wrote this btw?) And yes, I agree that Jung nowhere suggests that we can go back - even I don't think that we can go back. But by understanding how we got into our current mess, perhaps we can prevent things from getting ever worse. Perhaps we can stop. > One > would have to know the actual history to be troubled by Jung's > fantastic lumpen generalizing in the statement you chose to quote. Ah, Jung is " fantastic " now, is he? One wonders why you bother at all with such a fool. > > > It was hardly one middle age. As I said in another context, the idea > that the world may obtain equilibrium with respect to the broadest > conception of Jung's psychology applied too broadly, is nonsense if > applied to times way back just as it would be nonsense applied to > times way in the future. Maybe the pendulum will someday swing > through the center point. God Willing. > > Consider this: the alchemists took their investigations underground > as it were. Already in the late middle ages it became necessary for > many of the most conscious to overtly oppose or at least secret their > soul work against the royals, the church, the collective. It was ever thus. This is the problem of Socrates. You and other progressive democrats - including, I'm sorry to say, many Jungians who are or should be in a position to know better - seem to believe that it is just wrong for any individual to be in this position vis-a-vis the collective and its institutions. You seem to think that one has a divine or natural right to individuate without impediment from and without respect for the community and its opinions. You seem to think that there can, in other words, be no apologia for Athens in its prosecution of Socrates. I doubt this. Hence my " polemics. " Yes, modern liberal democracy is an experiment in allowing individuation with minimal interference from authority. How do you think it's going so far? It seems to me to be on a self-destructive path, although I must admit that of late there are signs of a turn-around. > They sought > to design methods for holding the tension of the opposites. We see > this in Averroes, Ibn Senna, Petrus Bonus, von der Flue, Valentinus, > Maier, etc., (on and on). On the surface of history's events we have > the extraordinary flowering of the 11th and 12th century in Chivalry, > in the golden age of the Sufi's, in the first exchanges with the East > (Carpini in the 1240s, later Marco Polo,) (etc.), and many later > developments over the next two centuries literally forced underground > to protect the golden seed against the turmoil and primitivism of the > Churches, the Priests, the rulers, the so-called aristocrats. > > (Part of the flipside: the Mongol expansions, to China in 1214, to > Persia in 1223, in total the 13th century was referred to as the > tower of darkness by the historian Felipe Armesto, and then, come the > disasters of the 14th century. These would include the growing > aggravation of schisms in Christianity and in Islam, and include the > crusades.) > > The devil is in the details. You won't find them in Jung. But my > question asked for them just the same. I see. No, I'm not going to attempt to analyze the medieval period year by year, or figure by figure. I think you answered your own question when you refer to the " golden seed " as having been forced underground. When and where is it not forced underground? Where is it now? Not on the WB. > > > *** > > Last time this came up, a year and half a go, I returned to Jung to > find a richer context. It's there in Symbols of Transformation, > Psychology and Alchemy, Aion, and Alchemical Studies, Mysterium > Coniunctionis. What are those books partly about? > > They are about the mighty efforts to hold psychologically the > religious nature of mankind against the brutish actualities of the > middle ages. But did Jung think we were to return to the middle ages? No. > > Or did he think that the wisdom of the ancients might help us better > understand and compensate via our own individuation against the > brutish realities of our own times? No. My understanding of Jung's view is that, in his opinion, modern times are far more brutish than was medieval Europe on the whole, despite the fact that we now all have good teeth, safe appendectomies, and wide-screen TV sets. It is my impression that Jung thought that somewhere during the medieval period, Western civilization reached its apex (or at least its highest point thus far), and that we have fallen mightily since then. I would, as you know, see nothing in that opinion with which to disagree. > > > Anyway, everything you write about aristocracy is fantastic. Well, if so, I am at least in some pretty fast company. > Alas, it > is not supported by the realities on the ground then, or now, > so-to-speak. > > Unless of course you'd like to speak of those realities. Which, I'm > quite sure, you won't. I still don't know what, specifically, you mean by these presumably horrific " realities. " Do you refer to the fact that the aristocrat lives in a house and the peasant in a hut, or something like that? > > > *** > > It's very difficult for me to see what is the difference between the > horrid one worldism supposed by you to be the objective of the > moderns and the one world noble " lie-ism " of your own fantasy about > the middle ages. Simple. One is the province of the last man, one is the province of the best man. The world of the last man is, I would argue, at least as antithetical to the emergence of the true individual as the pre-modern world. > Except for, of course: the time of the olden one > worldism is in the past. > > Would you like the world to someday be at psycho-religio (!) > equilibrium? If so, do you think it will be like the middle ages? I think - unfortunately - it would require a catastrophe of world-wide proportions to get rid of modernity, and even that might not do it. On the other hand, much of the world still is rather medieval, and much of it that is not could, I think, revert back rather easily (perhaps China, for example). So perhaps the battle is not yet lost and won. Intellectually, maybe it is. But divisiveness has its own power and perhaps contains our best human hope (yes, that is what I said). Regards, Dan Watkins > > > regards, > > > > *In a most general sense, Christiandom and Islam up until the late > 14th century offered the illiterate masses a safe mode within which > they could not be challenged by their own unconscious. Yet, Jung > understood well that his psychology was not an attempt to stuff the > genie back in the box. It's a virtue of this psychology that it > suggests we moderns will have to make do with what we know and with > what we might know. We all start from where were at. > > " 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 Dear , You wrote: > > > 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. I and some others don't believe it " unfolded " - we believe it was perpetrated. And we believe that the " old order " was actively, and consciously, maintained by them what knew. Perhaps that is the difference. Mine is not an historicist position. It didn't " happen " - it was done. > > > 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. I don't think we are speaking different languages. We have different opinions of the good. Regards, Dan Watkins > > > *** > > 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 Dear Toni, Vienna wrote: > 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? Of course I remember complexes. I just don't believe that all conflicts and difficulties among human beings boil down to complexes. There are genuine dangers. there is truly righteous indignation. > > 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. Sure, but when I did learn to ride a bike, first my father showed me how, then he told me what to do, and then he walked alongside and held the bike up until I got the hang of it (and on one of my first voyages, I *still* got hit by a car, lol). > 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 . Since I am myself always on about the myopia and hubris of modernity, I can't say that I think this is a fair criticism > 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? I don't know, how do you? Many of the people who claim to know how - and even claim to teach others how - seem to me not always to be doing so well themselves, so I don't trust them for guidance. You have, I trust, seen the letter posted here presuming to advise the President? > > > 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. This appears to me to be one of those " if only " statements. If only we would love ourselves and others as Jesus (or whoever) taught, then things would be swell. Well, maybe so, but such a statement is true only formally. Human beings have never done that en masse, and never will, so it's moot. We are still left to deal with what we have. > > > 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) Best of luck, and with your personal challenges too. Sounds as though I am the least of your worries. Let me know if anything I can do. Best, 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 > 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 > > " 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 Dear Toni, Vienna wrote: > Dear Dan, > For one thing, gentlemen don't lie, cheat or steal. Well, you may be two-thirds right. > An insider to what? He > is as aristocratic as my big toe. Who heard of the Bushes a few generations > ago? American aristocracy, such as it is, is more fluid than in some other places. > And how many gentlemen are politicians in today's world?. Not enough. > Harvard and > Yale do not automatically press out gentlemen upon graduation. Not anymore. > Furthermore, > bullying and calling others names is not the sign of either maturity or > gentlemanliness. I have been told that a gentleman never insults another person *unintentionally*. > Being a WASP is " one leg up " in New England, I agree, but > drugs and drink and " good ole boy " behavior may do well in Texas but leave > the rest of us cold. Yet I remain unconvinced that such behavior is restricted to Texans. > ( His mother is the only one somewhat " aristocratic " in > that family, but she obviously failed is making Bush a gentlemen. He would > make a good snake oil salesman, with his " boyish charm " and his macho > stance. . He considers himself a holder of " the TRUTH and that is really > dangerous to our freedoms and to peace. No, that will be the salvation of our freedoms, and the keeper of our peace in the long run. Dithering won't do. Did you - did anyone - really believe that, when those twin towers were brought down, there would not be a response. You don't spit in Rome's face. > As for his patriotism. Well ,a lot > of good men could have gotten out of the draft, but didn't use Daddy's > influence and then not even show up for duty. And now he shows us his great > willingness to suffer for our country? OK for us common folk though isn't > it. The Lord help us all, if he is an example our best One doesn't expect old heads on young shoulders (at first I typed " soldiers " by mistake :-). Everybody who could avoided going to fight that war, because it was being fought stupidly, and people knew it. I think he should have gone anyway, but, on the other hand, had I been his age, I wouldn't have gone either. One lives and learns. > > > What remains of the " real' aristocracy in this country is not quite as > welcoming as you are. That " real " aristocracy in America is not vocal, and > will not share their opinion with the hoi polio I am so glad he listened > to Graham. I kinda liked the old guy, but his ego is huge and his > depth small. Bush sure did learn how to preach to us heathens and pagans > though, didn't he. " Onward Christian soldiers " And those dastardly other > countries just don't know what a great leader of the world he would > make...right? > Give me break. I know what a gentleman is ( I even know some) and > dubya is no gentleman. Just a narrow-minded bully with a C-- mind, and a > belief in his own righteousness. > > That is my considered opinion. We haven't had a gentleman in the White House > for quite a while. FDR,, FDR? Well, maybe, but then so much for your " no lying, cheating or stealing " characterization above. > maybe Ike( an officer and a gentleman by act of > Congress?) I am not speaking of moral good or bad, or of mental ability in > this short rant of mine. > > As for your answer to me, old friend. America is a country which looks > forward and so should you be. To be in dismay about the past however you > interpret it ,is useless. We cannot undid it as you said. But there you > are: Dismayed at the past and apprehensive about the Future. Not much ground > to stand on is there. > > Your buddy Jung came up with an understanding of Self. Don't disparage it, > is all we have to keep the ego in check. And to many of us, the Self can be > our image of the Image of G-d. He said that, or did you skip that part of > Jung? Whether or not you pay heed to the Self or not, at least the great > man, Jung, did. I didn't skip it. I acknowledge, as I have before, that I am somewhat at a loss as to peoples' willingness to accept an " image " as good enough. If you see the animatronic President Lincoln at Disneyland, does it seem like you've seen Lincoln? Regards, Dan > > > Oh dear, now I am fodder for the likes of Ms Coultier again, Novak, and > Limbaugh.and our " noble " attorney general.Gee whiz. Off with my head. > > Original Message ----- > > To: <JUNG-FIRE > > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 11:48 AM > Subject: Re: human science > > > Dear fa, > > > > You wrote: > > > > > Dear Dan, you wrote: > > > > I think it is more of a head problem than a heart problem, which may > be > > > why feeling types in government seem to go around meaning well and > causing > > > > trouble. > > > > > > Like Bush, you mean? > > > fa > > > > > > > We'll see. I think you may be pleasantly surprised at how well things turn > out. If Bush is not a first class intellect, many of his advisors are. Bush > > is more along the lines of that gentleman I was talking about (American > style, of course) - legacy at Yale, Skull & Bones, and what not. An insider > at > > the places where American aristocratic values are preserved and passed on. > He's been subject to a lot of good influences (including Graham's) > > and his instincts are solid. No one is more surprised than I at the truly > outstandingly good job he is doing. I thought I would not live to see > > another President nearly as good as Reagan, and here I am wrong already, > thank G-d (or should I say " thank Self? " ). > > > > Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > " 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 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 suppose because I never speak of understanding things " purely " intellectually - indeed, I don't even know what that would mean. Aristotle's thought thinking itself, or something, I guess. All functions are necessary, but intellect is the faculty that knows principles. (Animals know things, and they sense, feel and perhaps intuit, but they don't know principles and they don't think. They lack logos. Remember logos? - aka God, per ? In the beginning was the word. We are akin to God in our ability to think. Otherwise, we are animals.) Regards, Dan > > > 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. > > > > " 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 Dear Toni, Vienna wrote: > 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. " I don't deny this. To repeat, I only deny that any but the very rare will be able to make the way to this experience without a map. And I believe that many of those unfortunate enough to " stumble " upon it have gone mad. Good thing that a lot of structural and obstructionist barriers have been erected around it. > > > 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. And, to repeat, I think you are attacking a chimera. I have not and do not speak of " pure intellectualism. " I find nothing here with which to disagree. > > > The whole process of individuation is a coming together of > ego(consciousness) and Self( unconsciousness). And individuation in this lofty sense is not for everyone. A conscious realization of the unconscious? Jesus. Plato, call your service. > 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. Indeed. It also is what it is, and not something else. An image is an image. > Everything the psyche > " sees " is images. That may be true - in fact, as far as I can see, it is true. That makes for a problem. An image is certainly an image, but it is not certainly more than that. Only those things that can be apprehended by the mind ( the qualities of a circle, to give a prosaic example) can be know with true certainty. And, as I have said before, certainty matters most to me. Everything else in philosophy - yes, even political philosophy - is faith base rules of thumb. > 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. Then Nietzsche is right about everything, and Jung is perhaps unjust to call him a madman. Or perhaps the philosopher and the wise one *is* a kind of madman (Plato refers to philosophy as a kind of mania, I believe). In any case, a very powerful - not to say irrefutable- argument can be made in support of your thesis here. And God help us all. > 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. Again, I don't know where this is coming from or why you think it is particularly relevant to my case. I make no such assumption. I have no doubt, for example, that the error of pacifism has unconscious roots. > > > 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 " No, they impinge themselves upon us, apparently like the hallucinations of the madman. We are all, then, madmen. The question becomes, then, how can we see through our hallucinations and get to the truth? > > > 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 would turn the question on its head and ask, how will I understand myself if I don't understand man? How will the doctor understand " this " person if he does not understand the human body in general/ > 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. Swell. Then why whine about the coming war, and the tens of thousand of innocents who will undoubtedly be blown to bits (if they're lucky)? Life is suffering. You see the problem. > > 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 says it is my place to be a hero? And what matters is not the crowd, which is always a headless wild beast ( " the people, united.... " :-), but its leaders. Regards, Dan > 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 March 3, 2003 Report Share Posted March 3, 2003 Dear Alice, I intend to check it out. what will I learn about old Isaac, I wonder? :-). Regards, Dan IonaDove@... wrote: > 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 March 3, 2003 Report Share Posted March 3, 2003 Dear Dan, You learned how to ride a bike when you were a child and could depend on your father...now you are a man, and probably would just go at it with a " how to manual " or maybe just do it. Different " modern myopia. I refer to the so called " age of reason " which evolved into only reason, and we can understand everything with our minds and intellect alone.We developed a hubris, and forgot we are fallible human beings. And that intellect alone won't cut it. The reason for the malady is our oversized egos in using our intelligence and rational ability to think we mastered the world. I am all for being intellectual,especially in solving rational problems, but life is irrational, and we cannot change that. Where does love of self and others come in?. It sure isn't an intellectual thing, nor is the power complex, for example.The complexes rule far more than you give them credit for, because they come from the unconscious and we don't see them until we find ourselves in the middle of one, if then. If it has an archetype it can have a complex and usually does. I hear even the term 'ego complex " and we all have egos. Dan, I do not worry about you. You don't have to agree with a thing I say, and I will never claim I am right and you are wrong. I was just hoping for an awareness in both of us, that there is always another way to see. I did at one time, try to convert you to my way of thinking. It is no longer so, in my heart.. Hasn't been for a while.But as you see that ego complex stirs me up and off I go. you replied to my last post: " Toni:'> > 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? > Dan: > " I don't know, how do you? Many of the people who claim to know how - and even claim to teach others how - seem to me not always to be doing so well > themselves, so I don't trust them for guidance. You have, I trust, seen the letter posted here presuming to advise the President? " How do I deal with the Self? We are usually engaged in a dialogue .Often, I just sit and listen sometimes I just sit.. G-d help me, don't turn to me for guidance, Dan. I am me, and I have had years to explore my way and my truth. I follow that as well as I can. I would not expect anyone else to do it " my way " . Sometimes, like all of us, I get lonely because we really do travel alone. I wish I could check things out as I used to with a spiritual advisor, now I just depend on the spirit. Bit I will never know a even a small smidgen, and I am satisfied with that. The vast unconsciousness will always remain a challenge. I just want to stick as close as possible to " That which I cannot fathom, describe, or try to understand. " {.It remains a struggle to keep the ego in a small position and allow the Self to take over the dominant role.) My question was an attempt to see what you how you deal with it. It was a rhetorical question. you wrote: This appears to me to be one of those " if only " statements. If only we would love ourselves and others as Jesus (or whoever) taught, then things would > be swell. Well, maybe so, but such a statement is true only formally. Human beings have never done that en masse, and never will, so it's moot. We are > still left to deal with what we have. " Nothing grows " en masse " One, Jesus did more than teach. he showed the way. But, there is no way you or I are to do Jesus' thing. We have our own cross,and not his. He followed his destiny to the bitter end. We must follow our. Besides, the answer to your question or remark about " as if. " ...well, we don't need to do it. We need only be open to it. The work is acceptance not constantly trying to reve up our own puny love. Some people do not have to " do'. because they have allowed, it to be done.(grace). Much easier. And yes ,within everyone's innate ability. See that is my whole point. You intellectualize the lesson taught and find neither you nor anyone else can do it. That's reasoning on what has occurred in the past. Why would it be called " metanoia " , or rebirth if it were not a new beginning? Love is not intellectual. You can not start it up, or shut it off. You do however have to realize that and depend on the spirit within to help. That is not an intellectual statement. I cannot prove it empirically,but I " know " because I have experienced it. Thank you for your good wishes. As you know, I believe that there are no accidents. What happens in our lives belongs to us. Sometimes I am overwhelmed and feeling sorry for myself. That does happen. But I know where to go with that self pity, and I do know, except in the dark of a sleepless night, that I am strong enough since I do not stand alone, to deal with whatever comes. It is hubris to think I have to be the pillar of strength for the family,because so far it has happened that way.But my children will be strong enough And so will my husband be.. I do get anxious when I forget this, especially if it concerns my beloved, but I am working on that anxiety. Sometimes my head does not do what the soul tells it to and we have to go the long way around.Sometimes negative thoughts, pessimism and lack of sleep make it worse. The suffering is there in everyone's life. I do not have it " all together " I just know I may yet have, but not in this life, for sure. Anyway color me a work in progress.Not wanting to convert anyone nor give them answers since I myself don't have very many. Those I have are mine because of my personal experiences. Toni Re: human science > Dear Toni, > > Vienna wrote: > > > 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? > > Of course I remember complexes. I just don't believe that all conflicts and difficulties among human beings boil down to complexes. There are genuine > dangers. there is truly righteous indignation. > > > > > 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. > > Sure, but when I did learn to ride a bike, first my father showed me how, then he told me what to do, and then he walked alongside and held the bike > up until I got the hang of it (and on one of my first voyages, I *still* got hit by a car, lol). > > > 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 . > > Since I am myself always on about the myopia and hubris of modernity, I can't say that I think this is a fair criticism > > > > > 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? > > I don't know, how do you? Many of the people who claim to know how - and even claim to teach others how - seem to me not always to be doing so well > themselves, so I don't trust them for guidance. You have, I trust, seen the letter posted here presuming to advise the President? > > > > > > > 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. > > This appears to me to be one of those " if only " statements. If only we would love ourselves and others as Jesus (or whoever) taught, then things would > be swell. Well, maybe so, but such a statement is true only formally. Human beings have never done that en masse, and never will, so it's moot. We are > still left to deal with what we have. > > > > > > > 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) > > Best of luck, and with your personal challenges too. Sounds as though I am the least of your worries. Let me know if anything I can do. > > Best, > > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2003 Report Share Posted March 3, 2003 Dan , all, ? The citation you make says the opposite (?). It says what Jung says. (Who wrote this btw?) You'll have to feed the citation back to me. The email I wrote (that your response replies to) doesn't have any citations in it. " You seem to think that one has a divine or natural right to individuate without impediment from and without respect for the community and its opinions. You seem to think that there can, in other words, be no apologia for Athens in its prosecution of Socrates. I doubt this. Hence my " polemics. " Yes, modern liberal democracy is an experiment in allowing individuation with minimal interference from authority. How do you think it's going so far? " I don't see it this way. I think you've confused the " anything goes " ethos of Nietzsche with: any individuation - as far as an individual's consciousness goes. Increases in psychological consciousness are good, are a good. Jung supposed this is the way our natural human nature could work, should work, does work, must be seen to work. Is the illusion of individuation worse than not individuating? The point of the analytic psychology is that its homeostatic nature is presented to each of us as our fate. The question then is: if we are aware of the imperatives of our fate, what is to be our response? Individuation is our response, and this response is so whether it is conscious or unconscious. Perhaps what troubles you is that the majority of persons attracted to analytic psychology are " liberals " whereas Jung was not so liberal. But nowhere does Jung say the proof of his psychology seen as an optimum, is that an individual must then end up with Jung's own political views. It doesn't follow that real individuation should arrive at a particular political point of view. This is -perhaps- one reason Jung said that he was Jung, and " not a Jungian. " He made is own way and so it is individuals must make their own way, consciously. *** You make your own case for a collective brake made upon the increase in consciousness. But, I don't see that this has anything to do with consciousness in terms of analytic psychology. You, and I may be understanding you incorrectly, seem to make a case for a kind of " great man " theory of individuation. Thus, for you, individuation is available to an individual as a given of their psychology, yet, this option is only wisely implemented by a very tiny subset of individuals, wisely implemented in this respect by only the few who can handle it, (etc.,) so-to-speak. So, what might aggravate you to some extent is the idea that a much broader swath of self-selecting humanity believe themselves capable of handling the cross of individuation. Am I right to characterize your views this way? In any case, I disagree with this view point. We don't no why one person is able to successfully confront the problem of the personality, (persona and shadow,) the problem of the Self, (anima and anima,) and finally the problem of mortality, (crone and senex,) and another person is not able to do so. But, how would any of us be in the position to say that we would be better off if a collective elected individuals to face these problems? (As far as the braking action of a political collective upon the individualistic views of persons who don't agree partly or wholly agree with the prescriptions of the collective, I at least agree with the idea that it has been this way 'ever thus'.) *** " I think you answered your own question when you refer to the " golden seed " as having been forced underground. When and where is it not forced underground? Where is it now? " I didn't my own question. Nor have you, yet. Was the medieval era more conscious than the modern era? I don't know. Were the most conscious persons of the medieval era more conscious than their modern counterparts? I don't know. Maybe they were about at the same 'level'. Were their more numbers of them way back when? I don't know. I don't know how we could manage a count. Or, if a count would matter in psychological terms. Have we gained some knowledge today and lost knowledge at the same time? Sure, with the exception of those extremely aware people who exist in all eras. " It is my impression that Jung thought that somewhere during the medieval period, Western civilization reached its apex (or at least its highest point thus far), and that we have fallen mightily since then. I would, as you know, see nothing in that opinion with which to disagree. " I do not agree, especially about a staticized apex. Yes, perhaps the pendulum swung through the centerpoint back then. I don't know if it did, but I think Jung could be interpreted to have suggested as much. I don't agree with this interpretation. Anyway, is it prevented by the sins of modernism from swinging again back through the centerpoint? I have no idea. But, as a thought problem I would suggest that were it to do so, it would swing through a centerpoint at *a higher level* than it did way back when it last did. It can only swing as a matter of the dynamic properties of the Psyche. Picture a spiral...this view is consistent with Jung's model of the psyche as I see it. But, I could be wrong, Dan. " Simple. One is the province of the last man, one is the province of the best man. " and, " So perhaps the battle is not yet lost and won. Intellectually, maybe it is. But divisiveness has its own power and perhaps contains our best human hope (yes, that is what I said). " We take the same propositions and come up with different conclusions. I put my hopes in a future aristocracy of the conscious (1x1x1x1...) and not in the aristocracy of the " city " . About this, obviously, we might agree to disagree. regards, -- Love all and hate none. Mere talk of peace will avail you naught. Mere talk of God and religion will not take you far. Bring out all of the latent powers of your being And reveal the full magnificence of your immortal self. Be surcharged with peace and joy, And scatter them wherever you are and wherever you go. Be a blazing fire of truth, Be a beauteous blossom of love and a soothing balm of peace. With your spiritual light dispel the darkness of ignorance; Dissolve the clouds of discord and war. Spread the message of goodwill, peace and harmony among the people. Never seek any help, charity or favours from anybody except God. Never go to the courts of Kings, But never refuse to bless and help the needy and the poor, the widow and the orphan when they come to your door. This is your mission, to serve the people... Hazrat Shah Goolam Mahomed Nizami Habibi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2003 Report Share Posted March 6, 2003 Dear , You wrote: > Dan , all, > > ? The citation you make says the opposite (?). It says what Jung > says. (Who wrote this btw?) > > You'll have to feed the citation back to me. The email I wrote (that > your response replies to) doesn't have any citations in it. Sorry, I meant this: *In a most general sense, Christiandom and Islam up until the late > 14th century offered the illiterate masses a safe mode within which > they could not be challenged by their own unconscious. Yet, Jung > understood well that his psychology was not an attempt to stuff the > genie back in the box. It's a virtue of this psychology that it > suggests we moderns will have to make do with what we know and with > what we might know. We all start from where were at. I see now that you wrote it yourself. > > > " You seem to think that one has a divine or natural right to > individuate without impediment from and without respect for the > community and its opinions. You seem to think that there can, in > other words, be no apologia for Athens in its prosecution of > Socrates. I doubt this. Hence my " polemics. " Yes, modern liberal > democracy is an experiment in allowing individuation with minimal > interference from authority. How do you think it's going so far? " > > I don't see it this way. I think you've confused the " anything goes " > ethos of Nietzsche with: any individuation - as far as an > individual's consciousness goes. Actually, I wouldn't say that Nietzsche espoused an " anything goes " ethic. He appears to me to have praised those things which enhanced life and power, and to have blamed those things that led to weakness or softness. > > > Increases in psychological consciousness are good, are a good. *A* good, yes. Philosophy is a good, perhaps the greatest good - yet there is a " tension " (as some people say euphemistically) between this ultimate individual good and the good of the collective. > Jung > supposed this is the way our natural human nature could work, should > work, does work, must be seen to work. Is the illusion of > individuation worse than not individuating? The point of the analytic > psychology is that its homeostatic nature is presented to each of us > as our fate. The question then is: if we are aware of the imperatives > of our fate, what is to be our response? Individuation is our > response, and this response is so whether it is conscious or > unconscious. > > Perhaps what troubles you is that the majority of persons attracted > to analytic psychology are " liberals " whereas Jung was not so > liberal. But nowhere does Jung say the proof of his psychology seen > as an optimum, is that an individual must then end up with Jung's own > political views. It doesn't follow that real individuation should > arrive at a particular political point of view. It does trouble me a bit, in part because I don't understand it. Psychology - including Jung's psychology - is supposed to be the science of human nature, not so? It's not just about therapy, or the path to individualism - it is also supposed to be the true speech about anthropos. " Real individuation " may not necessarily lead to a correct understanding of political things - maybe Madonna is individuated, I don't know. But a correct understanding of human nature - the supposed end of the discipline of psychology - *will* necessarily lead to a particular political point of view. To wit, the particular political point of view derived from a correct understanding of human nature as it actually is. Because Jung does understand human nature, he does not indulge much (if at all) in political wishful-thinking. Yet Jungians do not follow him. Yes, it is indeed troubling, and mystifying. > > > This is -perhaps- one reason Jung said that he was Jung, and " not a > Jungian. " He made is own way and so it is individuals must make their > own way, consciously. Yes, well. One wonders how " conscious " it is to refuse to live in the world of men as it actually is. > > > *** > > You make your own case for a collective brake made upon the increase > in consciousness. But, I don't see that this has anything to do with > consciousness in terms of analytic psychology. Analytic psychology does not have the luxury of saying (you should pardon the expression), Screw the city. The city will then, in the best case, ignore analytic psychology (will anyone be surprised when the President ignores the Stones' open letter?), and in the more serious case will land on it like a lead Zeppelin. Thus, the individual's search for " consciousness " does have something to do with collective needs, if only indirectly. Further, and to repeat, I would wonder just how " conscious " an individual who does not understand and take seriously the need s of the city could possibly be. > > > You, and I may be understanding you incorrectly, seem to make a case > for a kind of " great man " theory of individuation. Thus, for you, > individuation is available to an individual as a given of their > psychology, yet, this option is only wisely implemented by a very > tiny subset of individuals, wisely implemented in this respect by > only the few who can handle it, (etc.,) so-to-speak. Slightly overstated perhaps, but basically yes. > > > So, what might aggravate you to some extent is the idea that a much > broader swath of self-selecting humanity believe themselves capable > of handling the cross of individuation. It is rather bloody arrogant, since you mention it. One of the many ill-effects of excessive democracy. > > > Am I right to characterize your views this way? In any case, I > disagree with this view point. We don't no why one person is able to > successfully confront the problem of the personality, (persona and > shadow,) the problem of the Self, (anima and anima,) and finally the > problem of mortality, (crone and senex,) and another person is not > able to do so. But, how would any of us be in the position to say > that we would be better off if a collective elected individuals to > face these problems? What have elections got to do with it? Again with the democracy. I expect that the genuinely elect know who they are. > > > (As far as the braking action of a political collective upon the > individualistic views of persons who don't agree partly or wholly > agree with the prescriptions of the collective, I at least agree with > the idea that it has been this way 'ever thus'.) > > *** > > " I think you answered your own question when you refer to the " golden > seed " as having been forced underground. When and where is it not > forced underground? Where is it now? " > > I didn't my own question. Nor have you, yet. Was the medieval era > more conscious than the modern era? I don't know. If you mean in terms of the people, about the same, I should think. > Were the most > conscious persons of the medieval era more conscious than their > modern counterparts? I don't know. No doubt about it. You can know. Jung is a good guide. > Maybe they were about at the same > 'level'. Were their more numbers of them way back when? I don't know. > I don't know how we could manage a count. Or, if a count would matter > in psychological terms. > > Have we gained some knowledge today and lost knowledge at the same > time? Sure, with the exception of those extremely aware people who > exist in all eras. > > " It is my impression that Jung thought that somewhere during the > medieval period, Western civilization reached its apex (or at least > its highest point thus far), and that we have fallen mightily since > then. I would, as you know, see nothing in that opinion with which to > disagree. " > > I do not agree, especially about a staticized apex. Yes, perhaps the > pendulum swung through the centerpoint back then. I don't know if it > did, but I think Jung could be interpreted to have suggested as much. > I don't agree with this interpretation. Anyway, is it prevented by > the sins of modernism from swinging again back through the > centerpoint? Probably. Modernity certainly is a substantial hindering factor, yet it is here and we must deal with it. So let's deal with it, but consciously - i.e., with the knowledge that it is indeed a hindrance. Far from being the royal road to progress, it is a hobble. > > > I have no idea. But, as a thought problem I would suggest that were > it to do so, it would swing through a centerpoint at *a higher level* > than it did way back when it last did. It can only swing as a matter > of the dynamic properties of the Psyche. Picture a spiral...this view > is consistent with Jung's model of the psyche as I see it. But, I > could be wrong, Dan. The thing about spirals is that one can slide either way. > > > " Simple. One is the province of the last man, one is the province of > the best man. " > > and, > > " So perhaps the battle is not yet lost and won. Intellectually, maybe > it is. But divisiveness has its own power and perhaps contains our > best human hope (yes, that is what I said). " > > We take the same propositions and come up with different conclusions. > I put my hopes in a future aristocracy of the conscious (1x1x1x1...) > and not in the aristocracy of the " city " . > > About this, obviously, we might agree to disagree. If you suggest the possibility of a sort of universal aristocracy, an aristocracy of the people, then yes, we will. Regards, Dan wAtkins > > > regards, > > > > -- > > Love all and hate none. Mere talk of peace will avail you naught. > Mere talk of God and religion will not take you far. Bring out all of > the latent powers of your being And reveal the full magnificence of > your immortal self. Be surcharged with peace and joy, And scatter > them wherever you are and wherever you go. Be a blazing fire of > truth, Be a beauteous blossom of love and a soothing balm of peace. > With your spiritual light dispel the darkness of ignorance; Dissolve > the clouds of discord and war. Spread the message of goodwill, peace > and harmony among the people. Never seek any help, charity or favours > from anybody except God. Never go to the courts of Kings, But never > refuse to bless and help the needy and the poor, the widow and the > orphan when they come to your door. This is your mission, to serve > the people... > > Hazrat Shah Goolam Mahomed Nizami Habibi > > " 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 6, 2003 Report Share Posted March 6, 2003 Dan, all, Well now we get somewhere. You may not agree, but, I've got acres of new room to wiggle. > > Increases in psychological consciousness are good, are a good. > >*A* good, yes. Philosophy is a good, perhaps the greatest good - yet >there is a " tension " (as some people say euphemistically) between >this ultimate >individual good and the good of the collective. Okay. Yes. There's no objective way to sort out this tension; it's a " dynamicism " and it is organized around current conditionals. Let's cut to the chase, you write, >Psychology - including Jung's psychology - is supposed to be the >science of human nature, not so? It's not just about therapy, or the >path to >individualism - it is also supposed to be the true speech about anthropos. Dan, I see a basic problem here. If psychology is supposed to be a science of human nature, then the very first qualification you might make is: under what framework and theory of knowledge and methodology would it be a science of human nature? (Do you really mean: science, science as in scientific experimentation?) your formulation; the following, does not say anything about these qualifications: Jung developed = a psychology psychology = is a science Jung developed = a science The " true speech about the anthropos " is poetic but it confuses the issue. Under what conditions and to what demonstration of veracity is true speech about the anthropos *also* true *scientific* knowledge about human nature? You can make an appeal to philosophy, but it is beleaguered by exactly the same problem. So, for instance, we do have a philosophy of science but we do not have a science of philosophy. The basic problem is that the scientific method has not yet uncovered very many truths about the psychological operations of our consciousness. Yet, it has uncovered a vast amount of objective truth about how the brain works. We do have an a very elaborated and constructive cognitive and social science that comes closest, but I don't think Dan it's own knowing is this irreduciable *true speech* about the anthropos you speak of. if there is a third way, the fundamental question is: in what way are its findings to be established as demonstrably and scientifically, (hey, you brought it up,) true? *** I don't think for a second Jung's psychology is a science of human nature. Most of his most essential propositions are not falsifiable, and, where they clearly lend themselves to experimentation, this experimentation falls under the frames and structures of soft science, not hard science. This may, some day, change. And saying it is " supposed to be (whatever,) " does not make it so in the least. This goes for you saying it, and for Jung too; except he never said that his psychology was provable by scientific experimentation. ...quite the contrary. regards, ps >Further, and to repeat, I would wonder just how " conscious " an >individual who does not understand and take seriously the need s of >the city could >possibly be. This is only your opinion, Dan. I don't know of any current work being done in psychology, philosophy, sociology, or anthropology that is giving the city it's due in the terms you suggest. You're ahead of the curve on this one. You should write a book to set this straight. > > Were the most >> conscious persons of the medieval era more conscious than their >> modern counterparts? I don't know. > >No doubt about it. You can know. Jung is a good guide. Nowhere does Jung state this in unequivocal terms. As I stated before, he makes the case for a kind of equilibrium, not a superior consciousness. In any case, we today can only be conscious with respect to the present conditions. This idea is obvious and completely consistent with Jung's own views. 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.