What Jung said

[Guest guest]

Here is what Jung wrote on a subject similar to my post entitled " Freedom. "

Collected Works 10. Starting on page 200.

Paragraph 413.

" Loss of the instinct of self-preservation can be measured in terms of

dependence on the State, which is a bad symptom. Dependence on the State

means that everybody relies on everybody else (= State) instead of on

himself. Every man hangs on to the next and enjoys a false feeling of

security, for one is still hanging in the air even hanging in the company of

ten thousand other people. The only difference is that one is no longer

aware of one's own insecurity. The increasing dependence on the State is

anything but a healthy symptom; it means that the whole nation is in a fair

way to becoming a herd of sheep, constantly relying on a shepherd to drive

them into good pastures. The shepherd's staff soon becomes a rod of iron and

the shepherds turn into wolves. What a distressing sight it was to see the

whole of Germany heave a sigh of relief when a megalomaniac psychopath pr

oclaimed, 'I take over the responsibility!' Any man who still possesses the

instinct of self preservation knows perfectly well that only a swindler would

offer to relieve him of responsibility, for surely no one in his senses would

dream of taking responsibility for the existence of another. The man who

promises everything is sure to fulfill nothing and everyone who promises too

much is in danger of using evil means in order to carry out his promises, and

is already on the road to perdition. The steady growth of the Welfare State

is no doubt a very fine thing from one point of view, but from another it is

a doubtful blessing, as it robs people of their individual responsibility and

turns them into infants and sheep. Besides this, there is the danger that

the capable will simply be exploited by the irresponsible, as happened on a

huge scale in Germany. The citizen's instinct of self-preservation should be

safeguarded at all costs, for, once a man is cut off from the nourishing

roots of instinct, he becomes the shuttlecock of every wind that blows. He

is then no better than a sick animal, demoralized and degenerate, and nothing

short of a catastrophe can bring him back to health.

Paragraph 414.

" I own that in saying all this I feel rather like the prophet who,

according to phus, lifted up his voice in lamentation over the city as

the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem. It proved not the slightest use to the

city, and a stone missile from Roman ballista put an end to the prophet. "

I feel much the same.

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

I do appreciate your willingness to express the views here that you hold so

deeply.

I know there are some on this List who would agree and would put themselves

in your column. What you have expressed seems very much like that of the

Libertarian Party, does it not?

There is room for all of us, from left to right, and sometimes we have to let

others know what we feel.

I, myself, am conservative on some issues and liberal on others. It always

breaks my heart, though, when " Liberals " are castigated in the Letters to the

Editor columns, making them sound like baby-killers and not worth spitting

on. At one time the word, " liberal " , was a very positive word.

But I can tell this is not you, because you have thought out your position

carefully.

You seem to think that you will not find others here of " like-mindedness " ,

but I can assure you this is not the case.

I hope you'll contribute more. Oh, by the way, your excerpt from Jung, is

not applicable in this context. At least that's my opinion.

Best wishes,

Gene Baker

[Guest guest]

<< What you have expressed seems very much like that of the

Libertarian Party, does it not? >>

Dear Gene,

I followed the Libertarians with a lot of interest some years ago and they

pressured me to join the party, but I guess I am too much of an anarchist to

do that. Anyway, they took a strong anti-abortion stance which seemed to me

anything but Libertarian, so I kind of broke with them over that. I am not

particularly pro-choice, but have very mixed feelings over that issue. It

does seem to me that it is not something where government has any business

involving itself. My wife and daughters are strongly pro-choice and out of

respect for them and other women whom I love and admire I have remained

neutral, though I actually have complicated deeply held personal feelings on

the subject, maybe not relevant to this list.

Regarding several of the other comments, I have a lot of trouble why freedom

is not an important issue for some people. But that is not the point. If

some people want to give up some of their freedom in order to achieve

security and safety, that is fine. Just don't make it mandatory for everyone

regardless of whether they want that security or not.

And it strikes me as significant that the goal of Jungian analysis is

individuation, the polar opposite of collectivization. It takes courage to

follow that path and it's not for everyone. I often wonder if I have the

courage and doubt myself frequently. Then again, no one is compelled to take

it. But for those who do, overcoming obstacles, placed there by nature and

by civilization is what makes it interesting and worthwhile, though painful.

Freedom, however, is the goal.

I hope someone will comment on the quote from Jung.

[Guest guest]

> I hope someone will comment on the quote from Jung.

*Well, I must say I agree with Gene. What the quote is saying is very much

what most of us are saying - assume responsibility for your own life, for your

own freedom: don't wait for someone else to give it to you - and yet you feel

alone. I find that very strange.

As to doubt, there's a Zen saying which contends that... 'Great doubt, great

enlightenment. No doubt...'

[Guest guest]

<< My wife and daughters are strongly pro-choice and out of

respect for them and other women whom I love and admire I have remained

neutral, though I actually have complicated deeply held personal feelings on

the subject, maybe not relevant to this list. >>

As does every woman, my friend. Congratulations, you see the difficulty.

lightly, lightly,

phoebe

[Guest guest]

<< *Well, I must say I agree with Gene. What the quote is saying is very much

what most of us are saying - assume responsibility for your own life, for

your

own freedom: don't wait for someone else to give it to you - and yet you feel

alone. I find that very strange. >>

And then there's the odd thing to add: we are never not alive.

smiling,

phoebe

[Guest guest]

<<I hope someone will comment on the quote from Jung.

>>

,

Thanks for your recent contributions here. I find in you a kindred spirit. This

quote from Jung as many others in his CW10 concerns itself with problems of the

individual vs collectivization among other weighty matters. I personally think

that his writings in CW10 are some of his best. It contains much from the 30s

and 40s concerning his reactions to the events and personalities of WW2, and

much about the Hitler phenomenon. In fact, if anyone ever entertained the idea

that Jung had Nazi leanings, they would be disabused of such notions by a

thorough reading of this volume.

I especially value his " Wotan " and " After the Catasptrophe " , both of which

demonstrate the effects of archetypal possession (with Hitler and the Germans as

a case in point). The Wotan Essay was written in 1936 when Hitler was just

beginning to be taken quite seriously and the psychosis he manifested more

obvious. " After the Catastrophe " was written in about 1946, when the devastation

of WW2 on the Germans and the rest of the world an historical fact. It also gave

Jung a forum to basically say, " I told you so " - as he had done many times

earlier. Indeed, his prescience was astonishingly accurate. But now Jung also

addresses the next great looming threat to Man's survival, the bomb. He ends

the essay saying that unless Man learns how to go inside, to take the Psyche

seriously, to individuate, the ghastly events the world had already experienced

would be merely a " curtain raiser " . It is a caution we still must heed IMHO.

Greg

[Guest guest]

>s quote *is*, in

> fact, highly relevant to his " Freedom " post. I'm not quite sure why people

> felt that it wasn't?

*Relevant to the idea of freedom, sure. But for some reason (which I can't

quite put my finger on), seems to think he's alone in his *particular*

appreciation of the text. Infact, as far as *my* interpretation goes (and I

think

Gene would agree to a degree), it doesn't bear out his argument at all - at

least not as first stated. Subsequently, yes, but by then the argument has

shifted slightly. I still contend that what the Old Fool is on about is assuming

personal responsibility - or, to cite a recent letter from Alice -

" the plot of the play is:

1-we are born in uroboric state

2-we develop an ego that bears our name

3-we event identify w/ego n forget centerpt

4-go aroundd in circles searching [words have same root!]

5-crisis!

6-turn inward seeking the center thereby establishing communic - 'the Only

Way' traveled by all avatars.

7-wh ego surrenders in devotion to 'Christ w/in, atman, etv. then indiv is

possible

cgj - individuation, theologically understood, is incarnation. "

As far as I can ascertain, this is also more or less what 's saying

(unless I'm being very obtuse!)... If it is, I can't see why he feels his view

is

so different from everybody else's.

Of course, it*IS*, but that's a different matter and not what we are discussing

here.

m

[Guest guest]

all,

I think Jung's thoughts here deserve our consideration on their merits.

>Here is what Jung wrote on a subject similar to my post entitled " Freedom. "

>Collected Works 10. Starting on page 200.

>

>Paragraph 413.

>

> " Loss of the instinct of self-preservation can be measured in terms of

>dependence on the State, which is a bad symptom. Dependence on the State

>means that everybody relies on everybody else (= State) instead of on

>himself. Every man hangs on to the next and enjoys a false feeling of

>security, for one is still hanging in the air even hanging in the company

>of

>ten thousand other people. The only difference is that one is no longer

>aware of one's own insecurity. The increasing dependence on the State is

>anything but a healthy symptom; it means that the whole nation is in a fair

>way to becoming a herd of sheep, constantly relying on a shepherd to drive

>them into good pastures. >

This strikes me as a description painted with very broad strokes. The

'state' is characterized monolithically, as are the people, " everybody

relies on everybody else " . It seems to me to be an amplification of

complicated actualities into a worse case, with the details un-remarked

upon.

I also wonder if:

>The citizen's instinct of self-preservation should be

>safeguarded at all costs,

in fact explains why groups of people identify so strongly with political

belief systems which offer them self-preservation against the demons,

so-to-speak, interposed to prevent the realization of whatever the promise

of self-preservation is said to concern. This would also help explain the

fury behind certain protests and why most issues get retailed as

life-and-death matters. The better to pierce the tender instinct with its

mortal fears.

In a socio-political sense, 'freedom' may be constrained for obvious

reasons as well as for reasons having to do with the competition between

various conflicting views of self-interest. So the modern conservative, (as

opposed to the classical conservative,) might believe, " The citizen's

instinct of *self-interest* should be safeguarded at all cost " .

(I'm reminded also that the instinct as an archetype is discriminated by

virtue of its elevation, whereas, unintegrated, the instinct reflects its

shadow nature which is elemental animal biology, i.e. 'eat or be eaten'.)

***

More simplemindedly, there seems to be a difference between those who would

be individuals unfettered by collective constraints, and the consciously

'individuating' who would be unfettered by illusions about their own true

human nature. The latter may be thorns in the side of the collective

because they ask the most dangerous questions, the former, as well as those

who are a part of the " herd of sheep " may not even know such dangerous

questions exist, or, are worth asking.

For you fleas too,

The night must be long,

It must be lonely.

(Issa)

***

regards,

[Guest guest]

, you wrote:

>

> ***

>

> More simplemindedly, there seems to be a difference between those who

would

> be individuals unfettered by collective constraints, and the consciously

> 'individuating' who would be unfettered by illusions about their own true

> human nature. The latter may be thorns in the side of the collective

> because they ask the most dangerous questions, the former, as well as

those

> who are a part of the " herd of sheep " may not even know such dangerous

> questions exist, or, are worth asking.

I think if you re-read the whole article, and also " The Undiscovered Self "

in the same volume, you will find that Jung in fact says just that! Not so

simpleminded, either!! Bloody difficult to achieve, of course - but isn't

that what we are all striving for?

Or maybe I'm just a feebleminded idealist?

fa

[Guest guest]

<< Thank you so much for the Jung quotes. I found them

very relevant to the dialogues here...inner and outer. >>

Dear all,

With regard to the discussion of " Freedom, " here are some more insightful

words of Dr. Jung on this subject, with which I concur greatly.

The mistake, I believe, so many people make is to believe that the benefits

provided by government have a negligible effect on our freedom and are well

worth the small price paid. That is the view some of expressed here and is

probably the view that is predominant in our society.

My own feeling is that most of government's benefits could be provided by

other means, through smaller, more localized self-help units, perhaps based

on geography, or, more likely on certain " affinities " such as common work

roles or other community interests.

Here's what Jung said:

" The bigger the crowd the more negligible the individual becomes. But

if the individual, overwhelmed by sense of his own puniness and impotence,

should feel that his life has lost its meaning --which, after all, is not

identical with public welfare and higher standards of living -- then he is

already on the road to Sate slavery and, without looking or wanting it, has

become its proselyte. The man who looks only outside and quails before the

big battalions has nothing with which to combat the evidence of his senses

and his reason. But that is just what is happening today: we are all

fascinated and overawed y statistical truths and large numbers and are daily

apprised of the nullity and futility of the individual personality, since it

is not represented and personified by any mass organization. Conversely,

those personages who strut about on the world stage and whose voices are

heard far and wide seem, to the uncritical public, to be borne along on some

mass movement or on the tide of public opinion and for this reason are either

applauded or execrated. Since mass suggestion plays the predominant role

here, it remains a moot point whether their message is their own, for which

they are personally responsible, or whether they merely function as a

megaphone for collective opinion.

Under these circumstances it is small wonder that individual judgment

grows increasingly uncertain of itself and that responsibility is

collectivized as much as possible, i.e., is shuffled of by the individual and

delegated to a corporate body. In this way the individual becomes more and

more a function of society which in turn usurps the function of the real life

carrier, whereas, in actual fact, society is nothing more than an abstract

idea like the State. Both are hypostatized, that is, have be become

autonomous. The State in particular is turned into a quasi-animate

personality from whom everything is expected. In reality it is only a

camouflage for those individuals who know how to manipulate it. Thus the

constitutional State drifts into the situation of a primitive form of society

- the communism of a primitive tribe where everybody is subject to the

autocratic rule of a chief or an oligarchy. "

I think these are prophetic words. You will find them in " The Undiscovered

self " , paragraphs 503 and 504.

Finally, to answer two questions posed to my remarks: (1.) I do not want 6-8

weeks vacation! I want no vacation some years, and other times I want to take

half a year or a year off. I am not interested in any one size fits all

solution. (2). People need to provide for themselves. When the state takes

over as in Social Security, Medicare, etc., there is no incentive to make any

provision for the future. If some people would " take the money and run " they

should have to pay for their improvidence, not depend on everyone else to

make up for their lack of foresight. However, if some people want government

to provide these things, fine, so be it, just leave an exit door for those of

us who would opt out.

[Guest guest]

Well, dear , if I might try to weigh in here after the train has

left the station. Thank you so much for the Jung quotes. I found them

very relevant to the dialogues here...inner and outer. fa, your eyes

and heart to 'affinity' was most pleasing, as I have always found you to

be a most direct and articulate speaker with a youthful, keen mind and a

vibrant outlook. If I may use this opportunity to express a few thoughts

that are not random, nor uninformed. I will try to keep them topical to

Jung. Tonight, we in the US await the 'ruling' of the supreme court.

Make what you will of it(those of you in other countries)...myself, i

think our collective patience with the whole mucked up process, speaks

volumes...and the message that it sends is good in many ways. It means

we have faith in our system, our constitution, our elected voice in the

legislative branch of government and the faith and hope that the

judicial branch will interpret it in a fair minded way. It shows that we

as a nation understand we are in uncharted waters, perhaps swimming

upstream from a past that can not keep up with the future. There is to

this day, no rioting in the streets, no burning flags, no unrest and no

bloodshed. In fact, there has until tonight been only FREEDOM OF SPEECH

in it's most civic manner. Tomorrow might prove different, as I hear

is again fishing in troubled waters looking for that red

herring and claiming racial injustice to further his own personal

agenda.

I ask all of my friends here to have intellectual integrity about all

this and inform yourselves about election laws, the constitution and the

separation of powers, etc. before you let your emotions run rampant.

" Count all the Votes " sounds reasonable enough on the surface and if you

listen to the pundits, it sounds correct. But it has neither been

correct nor fair in the eyes of the law!! I heard a very interesting

part of Bois's exchange with the U.S. Supreme Court today. It

caught my attention for many reasons, mostly inner. I have not heard, so

far, any pundits pick up on it. I wish I could remember who he was

responding to on the court(perhaps O'Conner)..but he said(and I take it

out of context).. " ....the subtle Florida Law " . This left me wondering

if this was an oxymoron. I suppose he was trying to give sway under

direct fire and evading the issue much like he did when he gave 'two or

three answers' to direct questions from the bench. But it left me

wondering..is this another: " It depends on what IS...IS? " Are we going

to muck up our constitution with interpretations of 'shall' to mean

'shall not' or shall 'sometimes' or 'must' to mean 'if you feel like

it'? I wonder what in the hell is 'subtle' about LAW? If we have a

problem with a LAW..we need to correct and refine it in the 'elected'

legislative branch of government, who, by the way, are suppose to be the

'will and voice of the people'. All of this was laid out in our

constitution by our founding fathers. The problem I see in the US, is

threefold. We have either lost respect for the construction of the

constitution that was laid out by our founding fathers or we are

ignorant of it's genius? Or..we don't find it relevant to today's

problems(which can be seen in the problem of manually counting votes in

large metropolitan areas within the deadline statues).Or, we are just

too use to having our emotions overtake our reasoning. For those of you

who are not familiar with this language, it is sometimes argued that

Republicans are strict 'construtionists' of the constitution and

Democrats are 'activist'.

This is yet another catch all phrase that the media would like to see us

polarized with. The TRUTH, is that many 'intellectually honest'

democrats saw the problem with the Gore team request from the very

beginning and the ones in power(Sauls, and )...with this

'inner' honesty..ruled accordingly.They saw their cohorts trying to

throw out ballots from the military or claiming 'irregularities' in

republican precincts because uninformed people filled out APPLICATIONS

for ballots..remember that it was not the integrity of the ballot

itself! The republicans had to face their own paradox by saying on the

one hand...'Voter responsibility' and on the other hand: 'absentee

voter' leeway(which translates into 'intent of the voter'?)

During this whole process..... I was reminded of Orwell's: " Animal

Farm " ...remember when the pigs came to power and broke the law, they

would wake up the next day....and find a new law written that admonished

them from their wrong doings? (It's been awhile since i read the book,

but something tells me it's relavant..feel free to correct or engage

me)It seems that the pigs drank to excess one night and it was against

the LAW....but the next day, when they woke up all hung over and fearing

of God....the law had changed...to accommodate their misdeeds? I am not

at all sure of this analogy..just shooting it out there...haha.

As Jungians, in the best sense of the word, we can see that the LAW

might indeed be " SUBTLE " . But how is that practical in a collective

sense? I watched with amazement at the way both sides massaged,

manipulated and triangulated the " LAW " ...only to be caught themselves in

the web of opposites and paradox? Again, I found them just as polarized

or perhaps just as 'paralyzed' as I feel myself sometimes in the

struggle to separate ego from self...archetype from persona....and the

animus/anima from wishful mother/father bound thinking.....haha!! I

played with some active imagination the other day. I named an inner

'supreme court'...there was the animus/anima, the persona, the shadow,

the ego....and the self. Boy, did they have a lively

exchange...hahaha...What came out of it was this...the Ego and Self had

the most problems with each other, as each knew on the surface they were

the 'tie-breaker' vote!! Much like the 'will to power' cancels out the

'vulnerability to love'. BTW....Brita..I loved your forward of

Marquez's ponderings..a true gift for those who find beauty and art in

words and experience. Thank you so very much......my post is off the

cuff and

meaning no harm.....Just another all night vigil for hope, faith and

love.......Love,

blue670424@... wrote:

>

> Here is what Jung wrote on a subject similar to my post entitled " Freedom. "

> Collected Works 10. Starting on page 200.

>

> Paragraph 413.

>

> " Loss of the instinct of self-preservation can be measured in terms of

> dependence on the State, which is a bad symptom. Dependence on the State

> means that everybody relies on everybody else (= State) instead of on

> himself. Every man hangs on to the next and enjoys a false feeling of

> security, for one is still hanging in the air even hanging in the company of

> ten thousand other people. The only difference is that one is no longer

> aware of one's own insecurity. The increasing dependence on the State is

> anything but a healthy symptom; it means that the whole nation is in a fair

> way to becoming a herd of sheep, constantly relying on a shepherd to drive

> them into good pastures. The shepherd's staff soon becomes a rod of iron and

> the shepherds turn into wolves. What a distressing sight it was to see the

> whole of Germany heave a sigh of relief when a megalomaniac psychopath pr

> oclaimed, 'I take over the responsibility!' Any man who still possesses the

> instinct of self preservation knows perfectly well that only a swindler would

> offer to relieve him of responsibility, for surely no one in his senses would

> dream of taking responsibility for the existence of another. The man who

> promises everything is sure to fulfill nothing and everyone who promises too

> much is in danger of using evil means in order to carry out his promises, and

> is already on the road to perdition. The steady growth of the Welfare State

> is no doubt a very fine thing from one point of view, but from another it is

> a doubtful blessing, as it robs people of their individual responsibility and

> turns them into infants and sheep. Besides this, there is the danger that

> the capable will simply be exploited by the irresponsible, as happened on a

> huge scale in Germany. The citizen's instinct of self-preservation should be

> safeguarded at all costs, for, once a man is cut off from the nourishing

> roots of instinct, he becomes the shuttlecock of every wind that blows. He

> is then no better than a sick animal, demoralized and degenerate, and nothing

> short of a catastrophe can bring him back to health.

>

> Paragraph 414.

>

> " I own that in saying all this I feel rather like the prophet who,

> according to phus, lifted up his voice in lamentation over the city as

> the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem. It proved not the slightest use to the

> city, and a stone missile from Roman ballista put an end to the prophet. "

>

> I feel much the same.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni,

You wrote:

>

> , Jung was talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat, a

political

> dictatorship, an economic system of communism , particularly as he saw it

> develop in Russia. I don't believe we have an " mass movements " in this

country.

> No revolution like 1917 in Russia, 1933 in Germany. He certainly was not

> speaking of the democratic capitalism of the present day USA. He warned about

> the fact that masses of people can me led like sheep by scaring them to death,

> then offering them bread. He was talking about total control of the

> means of

> production, no individual enterprise permitted. And no voice of the people

> either. Jung also talks about an oligarchy or dictatorship. Not a

democratically

> elected government.

>

Some of the things that Jung said about democracy, aristocracy,

equality, tyranny, individualism, etc.

" A decent oligarchy - call it aristoccracy if you like - is the most

ideal form of government.... Without the aristicratic ideal there is no

stability " (CG Jung Speaking, p. 93).

" (T)he time comes when the State must make fake money. First it is

called 'inflation.' Then, because that is unpopular, 'devaluation.' now

they are calling it 'dilution.' But it is all the same thing - fake

money. Thus you have insecurity. Savings become illusory. since nature

is aristocratic, the valuable part of the population is reduced to the

level of misery. Communistic or Socialistic democracy is an upheaval of

the unfit against attempts at order. Consider the stay-in strikes in

France, the former Socialistic upheavals in Germany and Italy. This

state of disorder called democratic freedom or liberalsim brings its own

reactions - enforced order " (ibid, p. 92).

" With Hitler, you are scared. You know you would never be able to talk

to that man; because there is nobody there. He is not a man, but a

collective. He is not an individual; he is a whole nation " (ibid, p.

128).

" How to save your democratic USA? It must, of course, be saved, else we

all go under. You must keep away from the craze, avoid the infection.

Keep you army and navy large, but save them. If war comes, wait. America

must keep big armed forces to help keep the world at peace, or to decide

the war if it comes. you are the last resort of Western democracy "

(ibid, p. 133).

" Not everybody has virtues, but everybody has the low animal instincts,

the basic primitive caveman suggestibility, the suspicions and vicious

traits of the savage.... That's what a nation is: a monster. Everybody

ought to fear a nation. It is a horrible thing. How can such a thing

have honor or a word? That's why I am for *small* nations. Small nations

mean small catastrophes. Big nations mean big catastrophes " (ibid, p.

134 - 135).

" The Germans display a specific weakness in the face of these demons

because of their incredible suggestibility. This shows itself in their

love of obedience, their supine submission to commnads, which are only

another form of suggestion.... (T)he Germans are profoundly troubled by

a national inferiority complex, which they try to compensate by

megalomania.... It is a typical adolesecent psychology, apparent not

only in the extraordinary prevalence of homosexuality but in the absence

of an anima figure in German literature (the great exception here is

Goethe) " (ibid, p 152-153).

" Decentralization... allows for small social units. Every man should

have his own plot of land so that the instincts can come alive again. To

own land is important psychologically, and there is no substitute for

it.... People tend to look for the Kingdom of God in the outer world

rather than in their own souls. This is particularly true of

socialism....Our civilizing potential has led us down the wrong path.

All too often an American worker who owns only one car considers himself

a poor devil, because his boss hass two or three cars. This is

symptomatic of pointless striving for possessions " (ibid, p. 202).

" The Swiss are mentally more balanced and not so neurotic as many

peoples. We are fortunate to live in a great number of small cities.

If I do not have what my psyche needs, I become dangerous. Because in

our country the government is reluctant to aid community projects, the

projects that do materialize are all the more genuine and valuable "

(ibid, p 203).

" We may be, in the West, in very favorable social conditions, and we are

as miserable as possible - inside " (ibid, p 263).

" (A)s the world in general, particularly America, is extraverted as

hell, the introvert has no place, because he doesn't know that he

beholds the world from within " (ibid, p. 303).

" I don't want to play the prophet, but you see, *the* great problem

before us is over-population, not the atom bomb. The atom bomb,

teleologically considered, makes provision for the disposal of the

surplus.... This atom bomb business ... is terribly characteristic of

Uranos, the Lord of unpredictable events " (ibid, p 375).

" Civilization does not consist in progress as such and in mindless

destruction of the old values, but in developing and refining the good

that has been won " (CW 11, p. 292).

" For the primitive anything strange is hostile and evil. This line of

division serves a purpose, which is why the normal person feels no

obligation to make these projections conscious, although they are

dangerously illusory " (CW 8, p. 517).

" Dionysius is the abyss of impassioned dissolution, where all human

distinctions are merged in the animal divinity of the primordial psyche

- a blissful and terrible experience. Humanity, huddling behind the

walls of its culture, believes it has escaped this experience, until it

succeeds in letting loose another orgy of bloodshed. Al well-meaning

people are amazed and blame high finance, the armaments industry, the

Jews, or the Freemasons " (CW 12, p. 118).

" The levelling down of the masses through suppression of the

aristocratic or hierarchical structure natural to a community is bound,

sooner or later, to lead to disaster. For, when everything outstanding

is levelled down, the signposts are lost, and the longing to be led

becomes an urgent necessity " (CW 17, p. 248).

" The mystery of the earth is no joke and no paradox. One only needs to

see how, in America, the skull and pelvis of all the European races

begin to indianize themselves in the second generation of immigrants.

That is the mystery of the American earth. The soil of every country

holds some such mystery " (CW 10, p. 18).

" Only unconsciousness makes no difference between good and evil " (CW 9

II, p. 97).

" All that gush about man's innate goodness, which had addled so many

brains after the dogma of original sin was no longer understood, was

blown to the winds by Freud, and the little that remains will, let us

hope, be driven out for good and all by the barbarism of the twentieth

century " (CW 15, p. 69).

" How totally different did the world appear to medieval man! For him the

earth was eternally fixed and at rest in the center of the universe,

circled by a sun that solicitously bestowed its warmth. Men were all

children of God under the loving care of the Most High, who prepared

them for eternal blessedness; and all knew exactly what they should do

and how they should conduct themselves in order to rise from a

corruptible world to an incorruptible and joyous existence " (CW 10, p.

162).

Ah, it is to weep.

Regards,

Dan

[Guest guest]

, Jung was talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat, a political

dictatorship, an economic system of communism , particularly as he saw it

develop in Russia. I don't believe we have an " mass movements " in this country.

No revolution like 1917 in Russia, 1933 in Germany. He certainly was not

speaking of the democratic capitalism of the present day USA. He warned about

the fact that masses of people can me led like sheep by scaring them to death,

then offering them bread. He was talking about total control of the

means of

production, no individual enterprise permitted. And no voice of the people

either. Jung also talks about an oligarchy or dictatorship. Not a democratically

elected government. See your own quotes.

Of course people need to provide for themselves. And the majority of

well adult

citizens do so. This may be a great shock to you, I realize, but we have

a lower

unemployment rate than any country and any system. All but 5% of our citizens

work. (5% aint bad!

Have you any concern for the handicapped, the ill , the elderly or children?

They cannot work. Some of them never could, so could hardly save for a rainy

day. Must they depend on paternalistic charity? Must they eat " humble

pie " along

with the groceries they are given?

If you had any idea of the largess of the social security system, you would

realize that it covers less than half of the average persons expenses. So

obviously everyone must save early on. The top payment is $1400 monthly, for

those who put the maximum in during their working days.

Reality needs to take over. Do you have any idea what a heart attack

costs? a

radiation treatment? treatment for macular degeneration? There is no one

in the

bottom 85% of the population who could afford more than one illness

before being

wiped out financially. Maybe we should just let them suffer and die.

Almost all

Medicare recipients must carry supplemental medical insurance, and most

do not

cover prescription drugs.

I strongly suggest you do not opt out. The day may come when you will

need help,

and a tin cup won't do.

Those of us who " lower " ourselves in your estimation, did save, did put kids

through college, did take care of elderly parents. gave to charity, and still

could not make it through more than one major illness or a very long

life(depending on the stock market, of course, and how rich our kids

are. But

more than that, we worked for 40-50 years for those pensions, and we did

contribute , even after 65 to our social security.

You cannot opt out for the simple reason that once allowed to, many people

unable to save, would still need help, even if they did not contribute. This

land of ours does have some idea of social responsibility. We do not

believe in

two tiers of people.And it isn't having no incentive to save, unless

living in

poverty is a desired end.

What is so awful about using some of your hard earned money to help

yourself and

others in your old age? What is so awful about accepting responsibility

for the

society in which you live?

As far as volunteering, most senior citizens do just that, as do we. You

don't pin a star on yourself because you give back a little of what you

have. Most people who can, do, in this country if you follow the statistics.

Toni

>

> With regard to the discussion of " Freedom, " here are some more insightful

> words of Dr. Jung on this subject, with which I concur greatly.

>

>

>

> Here's what Jung said:

>

> " The bigger the crowd the more negligible the individual becomes. But

> if the individual, overwhelmed by sense of his own puniness and impotence,

> should feel that his life has lost its meaning --which, after all, is not

> identical with public welfare and higher standards of living -- then he is

> already on the road to Sate slavery and, without looking or wanting it, has

> become its proselyte. The man who looks only outside and quails before the

> big battalions has nothing with which to combat the evidence of his senses

> and his reason. But that is just what is happening today: we are all

> fascinated and overawed y statistical truths and large numbers and are daily

> apprised of the nullity and futility of the individual personality, since it

> is not represented and personified by any mass organization. Conversely,

> those personages who strut about on the world stage and whose voices are

> heard far and wide seem, to the uncritical public, to be borne along on some

> mass movement or on the tide of public opinion and for this reason are either

> applauded or execrated. Since mass suggestion plays the predominant role

> here, it remains a moot point whether their message is their own, for which

> they are personally responsible, or whether they merely function as a

> megaphone for collective opinion.

>

> Under these circumstances it is small wonder that individual judgment

> grows increasingly uncertain of itself and that responsibility is

> collectivized as much as possible, i.e., is shuffled of by the individual and

> delegated to a corporate body. In this way the individual becomes more and

> more a function of society which in turn usurps the function of the real life

> carrier, whereas, in actual fact, society is nothing more than an abstract

> idea like the State. Both are hypostatized, that is, have be become

> autonomous. The State in particular is turned into a quasi-animate

> personality from whom everything is expected. In reality it is only a

> camouflage for those individuals who know how to manipulate it. Thus the

> constitutional State drifts into the situation of a primitive form of society

> - the communism of a primitive tribe where everybody is subject to the

> autocratic rule of a chief or an oligarchy. "

>

> I think these are prophetic words. You will find them in " The Undiscovered

> self " , paragraphs 503 and 504.

>

> . (2). People need to provide for themselves. When the state takes

> over as in Social Security, Medicare, etc., there is no incentive to make any

> provision for the future. If some people would " take the money and run " they

> should have to pay for their improvidence, not depend on everyone else to

> make up for their lack of foresight. However, if some people want government

> to provide these things, fine, so be it, just leave an exit door for those of

> us who would opt out.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

This is all very good stuff and I am eager to write more, but must wait a day

or so because I am busy with other things. But I have to say that Toni is

wrong about one thing: the quotes I cited were written in 1957, so they do

not relate to things happening in Germany, but only their aftermath. They

were among Jung's later writings and he did not change his mind. They are as

timely today as they were then.

More anon.

[Guest guest]

Dan (welcome back btw!)

Thank you for amassing all those quotes - they are *so* relevant for me at

the moment. Strange but true, I don't have my own copy of _C. G. Jung

Speaking_ and have recently taken it out of the library again. Have you read

the Nietzsche's Zarathustra Seminars?

I am incredibly behind with mail, so will reply to everything which concerns

me (private or public) in due course.

fa

[Guest guest]

Dear Dan, Thanks for the quotes. I printed your post so I could understand where

Jung

was coming from. All I can say, at the moment, is he did not live to see the US

in

the 21st century. We have come a long way since he died, and some of his

observation,

are dated.

I had to smile about his comment of oligarchy and aristocracy. If (I could get

away

with it,) I might agree. But this is the era of the " common man " and one and all

are

here to remind us of it. I always told you I thought Plato had a great answer,

except

there is no such thing as a benevolent despot, except in his mind.

Secondly , we 21st century citizens seem to care more for individual freedom

than

stability. Whatever would Tom deLay and Heston of the NRA say to Jung??? How

about

those state militias?

We have the Federal Reserve, which was not what it is now in Jung's day. The

chances

of a run away inflation a la 1929-33 in Europe is impossible here as long as the

Federal Reserve has the last say on interest rates.( which as you know,

structure the

exchange rates) The laws put into effect in the New Deal protect bank assets.

There

will not be a run on the banks in this country.

We must be doing something unheard of in the 1950 " s. An unemployment rate at an

all

time low, and prosperity fueled by a run away consumer spending. Reread the

economic

history of the first half of the 20th Century during which Jung lived. He was

reacting to what he saw in front of him, and consequently what he was afraid

would

continue. Psychological prophet he may have been, but as an economist, world

trader,

or democratic politician, he was a man of his time.

His idealism is wonderful. but like reality around us, it doesn't have to deal

with

technology, and manufacturing and commerceWe cannot return to the city-states of

Greece. The noble savage is alive and well and living in New York, Chicago or

LA.

We can no more go back to feudal times, or to the small family plot, than we can

turn

off scientists, chemists and the men who make commerce run at full speed.

Please remember where Jung was, and what he saw and heard. Listen to Churchill

or

FDR. Fear abounded in those dark days from mass riots, to starvation in some

countries, and then to all out war and beastliness unenvisioned by the so called

" modern, cultured, educated people of this world.

I do not think this is the best of all possible worlds. When we do away with

greed,

fear and violence, maybe we will have heaven on earth. In the mean time, ... the

doomsayers were wrong. There is no crash, none of the magnitude of 1929-33 in

the

world, the countries of the world could feed their populations with the new

discoveries being made to help nature( they don't because the use food as a

means of

power.) The latest polls show most Americans satisfied with their

lives...Surprise,

surprise.

On the other hand, we live in a culture gone mad with consumerism, we hardly

appreciate our intellects except where we could use them to make more money, We

have

the nuclear bomb, and we could blow ourselves and every other living thing to

hell.

If we don't do that, perhaps we will clone ourselves, or give ourselves heart

transplants to make us realize what we are doing.

My point is that you and and all of us who live in what would have been

considered paradise until a century ago, stop ranting and raving about the loss

of a

few individual small liberties, which is part of this country's social

contract, and

try not to undermine a government that is working( somewhat. )You are not

Henry and you don't have to chose death if you can't have all the liberty you

think

you deserve.you want.

Dan, I am sorry if I come on too strong, but I was there. The day I was born the

Credit Anstalt in Vienna crashed and brought on the worst depression ever that

was

the first time, (but not the last that my father lost almost everything). On my

birthday.The communist riots started in Europe because men needed jobs, and

because

the money was no good for buying bread. I was there when the German's came up

with

the answer to economic hard times, and chose a leader to make things better. I

was

also there when the humiliation of those not fit to live began, when we again

lost

everything except our lives, and I was in the land of the free and the home of

the

brave when it all ended.(My father started for the third time and made it

again.)

I can understand the worries of the old(I am old) and the frustration of the

young

for having to pay " high taxes', because I have 4 adult children, and we also

still

pay some heavy ones. I can understand the feeling of insecurity that comes with

being

one sickness or hospital stay away from poverty and want. I can commiserate

with the

mentally ill who were thrown out of institutions to fend for themselves on their

own

in the streets, and I worked in a school where the only meal the kids had was

the one

served at school.

We have the best system yet devised by fallen man, and we are a hope to millions

of

others. So, lets keep our dissatisfactions in proper focus.

Sorry, but I feel very thankful to be here and a citizen for 57

years.Regardless

what Jung said in his depression, and he was not the only one in those dark

days,

This nation is not a monster. And big nations do not have to be a catastrophe.

Toni

Dan Watkins wrote

>

> " A decent oligarchy - call it aristoccracy if you like - is the most

> ideal form of government.... Without the aristicratic ideal there is no

> stability " (CG Jung Speaking, p. 93).

>

> " (T)he time comes when the State must make fake money. First it is

> called 'inflation.' Then, because that is unpopular, 'devaluation.' now

> they are calling it 'dilution.' But it is all the same thing - fake

> money. Thus you have insecurity. Savings become illusory. since nature

> is aristocratic, the valuable part of the population is reduced to the

> level of misery. Communistic or Socialistic democracy is an upheaval of

> the unfit against attempts at order. Consider the stay-in strikes in

> France, the former Socialistic upheavals in Germany and Italy. This

> state of disorder called democratic freedom or liberalsim brings its own

> reactions - enforced order " (ibid, p. 92).

>

> " With Hitler, you are scared.

> . He is not an individual; he is a whole nation " (ibid, p.

> 128).

>

> " How to save your democratic USA? It must, of course, be saved, else we

> all go under. You must keep away from the craze, avoid the infection.

> Keep you army and navy large, but save them. If war comes, wait. America

> must keep big armed forces to help keep the world at peace, or to decide

> the war if it comes. you are the last resort of Western democracy "

> (ibid, p. 133).

>

> .. That's what a nation is: a monster. Everybody

> ought to fear a nation. It is a horrible thing. How can such a thing

> have honor or a word? That's why I am for *small* nations. Small nations

> mean small catastrophes. Big nations mean big catastrophes " (ibid, p.

> 134 - 135).

>

> " The Germans display a specific weakness in the face of these demons

> because of their incredible suggestibility. This shows itself in their

> love of obedience, their supine submission to commnads, which are only

> another form of suggestion.... (T)he Germans are profoundly troubled by

> a national inferiority complex, which they try to compensate by

> megalomania.... It is a typical adolesecent psychology, apparent not

> only in the extraordinary prevalence of homosexuality but in the absence

> of an anima figure in German literature (the great exception here is

> Goethe) " (ibid, p 152-153).

>

> " Decentralization... allows for small social units. Every man should

> have his own plot of land so that the instincts can come alive again. To

> own land is important psychologically, and there is no substitute for

> ..Our civilizing potential has led us down the wrong path.

>

> All too often an American worker who owns only one car considers himself

> a poor devil, because his boss hass two or three cars. This is

> symptomatic of pointless striving for possessions " (ibid, p. 202).

>

> " " We may be, in the West, in very favorable social conditions, and we are

> as miserable as possible - inside " (ibid, p 263).

>

> " (A)s the world in general, particularly America, is extraverted as

> hell, the introvert has no place, because he doesn't know that he

> beholds the world from within " (ibid, p. 303).

>

> " I don't want to play the prophet, but you see, *the* great problem

> before us is over-population, not the atom bomb. The atom bomb,

> teleologically considered, makes provision for the disposal of the

> surplus.... This atom bomb business ... is terribly characteristic of

> Uranos, the Lord of unpredictable events " (ibid, p 375).

>

> " Civilization does not consist in progress as such and in mindless

> destruction of the old values, but in developing and refining the good

> that has been won " (CW 11, p. 292).

>

>

>

>

>

> " The levelling down of the masses through suppression of the

> aristocratic or hierarchical structure natural to a community is bound,

> sooner or later, to lead to disaster. For, when everything outstanding

> is levelled down, the signposts are lost, and the longing to be led

> becomes an urgent necessity " (CW 17, p. 248).

>

>

>

>

> " All that gush about man's innate goodness, which had addled so many

> brains after the dogma of original sin was no longer understood, was

> blown to the winds by Freud, and the little that remains will, let us

> hope, be driven out for good and all by the barbarism of the twentieth

> century " (CW 15, p. 69).

>

> " How totally different did the world appear to medieval man! For him the

> earth was eternally fixed and at rest in the center of the universe,

> circled by a sun that solicitously bestowed its warmth. Men were all

> children of God under the loving care of the Most High, who prepared

> them for eternal blessedness; and all knew exactly what they should do

> and how they should conduct themselves in order to rise from a

> corruptible world to an incorruptible and joyous existence " (CW 10, p.

> 162).

>

> Ah, it is to weep.

>

> Dan

>

[Guest guest]

Dear fa,

fa wrote:

>

> Dan (welcome back btw!)

>

Have you read

> the Nietzsche's Zarathustra Seminars?

>

I have, but always had to schlep to library to get it. Just recently

ordered my own copy though - ouch!

Best,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni,

You wrote:

>

> Dear Dan, Thanks for the quotes. I printed your post so I could understand

where Jung

> was coming from. All I can say, at the moment, is he did not live to see the

US in

> the 21st century. We have come a long way since he died, and some of his

observation,

> are dated.

Oh, come now (Maynard G. Krebs voice). Is Plato dated? Is Aristotle?

Jung is for the ages.

> I had to smile about his comment of oligarchy and aristocracy. If (I could get

away

> with it,) I might agree. But this is the era of the " common man " and one and

all are

> here to remind us of it.

Well, if you can't get away with it, you can at least go down swinging -

in any case, Jung got away with it and we are his students.

>I always told you I thought Plato had a great answer, except

> there is no such thing as a benevolent despot, except in his mind.

As I think I said to you before, I think that *The Republic* is, at

least in part, intended to be a satire or joke. It certainly is funny,

anyway. Perhaps Plato's " real " book on practical government is the Laws.

> Secondly , we 21st century citizens seem to care more for individual freedom

than

> stability. Whatever would Tom deLay and Heston of the NRA say to Jung??? How

about

> those state militias?

Jung wasn't anti-gun as far as I know. He was Swiss, and I believe the

Swiss are wont to say that the *are* their army.

>

> We have the Federal Reserve, which was not what it is now in Jung's day. The

chances

> of a run away inflation a la 1929-33 in Europe is impossible here as long as

the

> Federal Reserve has the last say on interest rates.( which as you know,

structure the

> exchange rates) The laws put into effect in the New Deal protect bank assets.

There

> will not be a run on the banks in this country.

> We must be doing something unheard of in the 1950 " s. An unemployment rate at

an all

> time low, and prosperity fueled by a run away consumer spending. Reread the

economic

> history of the first half of the 20th Century during which Jung lived. He was

> reacting to what he saw in front of him, and consequently what he was afraid

would

> continue. Psychological prophet he may have been, but as an economist, world

trader,

> or democratic politician, he was a man of his time.

Good try ;-). Unfortunately, one cannot be a first rate psychologist

without being an at least competent political scientist (and that

encompasses economics).

> His idealism is wonderful. but like reality around us, it doesn't have to deal

with

> technology, and manufacturing and commerceWe cannot return to the city-states

of

> Greece. The noble savage is alive and well and living in New York, Chicago or

LA.

> We can no more go back to feudal times, or to the small family plot, than we

can turn

> off scientists, chemists and the men who make commerce run at full speed.

>

> Please remember where Jung was, and what he saw and heard.

But what he saw and heard above all, through all the particularities,

was human nature or the human soul, which is permanent - or if it isn't,

it surely doesn't change in 50 years.

>

> My point is that you and and all of us who live in what would have been

> considered paradise until a century ago,

Although Jung, who lived a century ago, did not by any means consider it

to be or have been paradise.

>stop ranting and raving about the loss of a

> few individual small liberties, which is part of this country's social

contract, and

> try not to undermine a government that is working( somewhat. )

I don't see us as ranting and raving, just resisting. I haven't started

shopping for my ranch in Alaska yet ;-).

>You are not

> Henry and you don't have to chose death if you can't have all the liberty you

think

> you deserve.you want.

>

> Dan, I am sorry if I come on too strong, but I was there. The day I was born

the

> Credit Anstalt in Vienna crashed and brought on the worst depression ever that

was

> the first time, (but not the last that my father lost almost everything). On

my

> birthday.The communist riots started in Europe because men needed jobs, and

because

> the money was no good for buying bread. I was there when the German's came up

with

> the answer to economic hard times, and chose a leader to make things better.

These are among the " barbarisms " of the twentieth century of which Jung

speaks, born of mass-mindedness and unnaturally empowered through an

unholy marriage with technology. Jung prescribes the individual as the

fundamental antidote. I would agree with you that modern liberal

democracy is the best hope for the potential for truly human life in

future, but preservation even of modern liberal democracy requires, I

think, that we pay close heed to the fundamental political truths

outlined by Jung (et al).

>I was

> also there when the humiliation of those not fit to live began, when we again

lost

> everything except our lives, and I was in the land of the free and the home

of the

> brave when it all ended.(My father started for the third time and made it

again.)

> I can understand the worries of the old(I am old) and the frustration of the

young

> for having to pay " high taxes', because I have 4 adult children, and we also

still

> pay some heavy ones. I can understand the feeling of insecurity that comes

with being

> one sickness or hospital stay away from poverty and want. I can commiserate

with the

> mentally ill who were thrown out of institutions to fend for themselves on

their own

> in the streets, and I worked in a school where the only meal the kids had was

the one

> served at school.

> We have the best system yet devised by fallen man, and we are a hope to

millions of

> others. So, lets keep our dissatisfactions in proper focus.

What about Jung's description of the medieval " world " where God was in

his heaven and man his favored son (as I posted). Wasn't that better?

(Jung seems to have thought so - was he wrong?0 Or the polis, where the

emphasis was on fostering human individual excellence rather than safety

and security? We have a decent system, agreed, but I think it's a

stretch to call it the " best yet devised. "

> Sorry, but I feel very thankful to be here and a citizen for 57

years.Regardless

> what Jung said in his depression, and he was not the only one in those dark

days,

> This nation is not a monster. And big nations do not have to be a

catastrophe.

I don't know that it's fair to Jung to write off his political views

(which were consistently maintained and expressed over quite some time)

to psychopathology (depression). And even if he was depressed, that

would not *ipso facto* make him wrong. Jung doesn't say that big nations

" have to " be a catastrophe - remember, as I quoted, he looked to the US

as the last hope of Western democracy. What he does say, though, as

that, when they go down, big countries go down harder and with more

disastrous effect than small countries.

I'm aware that things could be much worse, and have been worse, even in

my lifetime, and I am thankful, too. The goal, for me, then, would be to

ward off further future degradation.

In one of his very last interviews, Jung describes Russia as possibly

the worst extant regime, and India as the best (from the point of view

of fertile ground for the development of the individual). I have always

found that fascinating.

Regards,

Dan

>

> Toni

>

> Dan Watkins wrote

>

> >

> > " A decent oligarchy - call it aristoccracy if you like - is the most

> > ideal form of government.... Without the aristicratic ideal there is no

> > stability " (CG Jung Speaking, p. 93).

> >

> > " (T)he time comes when the State must make fake money. First it is

> > called 'inflation.' Then, because that is unpopular, 'devaluation.' now

> > they are calling it 'dilution.' But it is all the same thing - fake

> > money. Thus you have insecurity. Savings become illusory. since nature

> > is aristocratic, the valuable part of the population is reduced to the

> > level of misery. Communistic or Socialistic democracy is an upheaval of

> > the unfit against attempts at order. Consider the stay-in strikes in

> > France, the former Socialistic upheavals in Germany and Italy. This

> > state of disorder called democratic freedom or liberalsim brings its own

> > reactions - enforced order " (ibid, p. 92).

> >

> > " With Hitler, you are scared.

> > . He is not an individual; he is a whole nation " (ibid, p.

> > 128).

> >

> > " How to save your democratic USA? It must, of course, be saved, else we

> > all go under. You must keep away from the craze, avoid the infection.

> > Keep you army and navy large, but save them. If war comes, wait. America

> > must keep big armed forces to help keep the world at peace, or to decide

> > the war if it comes. you are the last resort of Western democracy "

> > (ibid, p. 133).

> >

> > .. That's what a nation is: a monster. Everybody

> > ought to fear a nation. It is a horrible thing. How can such a thing

> > have honor or a word? That's why I am for *small* nations. Small nations

> > mean small catastrophes. Big nations mean big catastrophes " (ibid, p.

> > 134 - 135).

> >

> > " The Germans display a specific weakness in the face of these demons

> > because of their incredible suggestibility. This shows itself in their

> > love of obedience, their supine submission to commnads, which are only

> > another form of suggestion.... (T)he Germans are profoundly troubled by

> > a national inferiority complex, which they try to compensate by

> > megalomania.... It is a typical adolesecent psychology, apparent not

> > only in the extraordinary prevalence of homosexuality but in the absence

> > of an anima figure in German literature (the great exception here is

> > Goethe) " (ibid, p 152-153).

> >

> > " Decentralization... allows for small social units. Every man should

> > have his own plot of land so that the instincts can come alive again. To

> > own land is important psychologically, and there is no substitute for

> > ..Our civilizing potential has led us down the wrong path.

>

> >

> > All too often an American worker who owns only one car considers himself

> > a poor devil, because his boss hass two or three cars. This is

> > symptomatic of pointless striving for possessions " (ibid, p. 202).

> >

> > " " We may be, in the West, in very favorable social conditions, and we are

> > as miserable as possible - inside " (ibid, p 263).

> >

> > " (A)s the world in general, particularly America, is extraverted as

> > hell, the introvert has no place, because he doesn't know that he

> > beholds the world from within " (ibid, p. 303).

> >

> > " I don't want to play the prophet, but you see, *the* great problem

> > before us is over-population, not the atom bomb. The atom bomb,

> > teleologically considered, makes provision for the disposal of the

> > surplus.... This atom bomb business ... is terribly characteristic of

> > Uranos, the Lord of unpredictable events " (ibid, p 375).

> >

> > " Civilization does not consist in progress as such and in mindless

> > destruction of the old values, but in developing and refining the good

> > that has been won " (CW 11, p. 292).

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > " The levelling down of the masses through suppression of the

> > aristocratic or hierarchical structure natural to a community is bound,

> > sooner or later, to lead to disaster. For, when everything outstanding

> > is levelled down, the signposts are lost, and the longing to be led

> > becomes an urgent necessity " (CW 17, p. 248).

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > " All that gush about man's innate goodness, which had addled so many

> > brains after the dogma of original sin was no longer understood, was

> > blown to the winds by Freud, and the little that remains will, let us

> > hope, be driven out for good and all by the barbarism of the twentieth

> > century " (CW 15, p. 69).

> >

> > " How totally different did the world appear to medieval man! For him the

> > earth was eternally fixed and at rest in the center of the universe,

> > circled by a sun that solicitously bestowed its warmth. Men were all

> > children of God under the loving care of the Most High, who prepared

> > them for eternal blessedness; and all knew exactly what they should do

> > and how they should conduct themselves in order to rise from a

> > corruptible world to an incorruptible and joyous existence " (CW 10, p.

> > 162).

> >

> > Ah, it is to weep.

> >

> > Dan

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I believe they were published in 1957, but written before. I disagree totally

that the world is in the same situation it was in even then. (the cold war was

very threatening, the Korean war was over (and it's the year I married.My

husband flew a fully loaded B47 on constant alert then. Jung was afraid of

Stalin, the Russian revolution of 1917 and communism, as much as Hitler and

Germany, Mussolini and Italy. He(Jung is talking about dictatorship amd the

national socialism for which NAZI stands. He was scared to death of

Materialistic communism....It is not a great threat today.( It sure was in

1957.)..even if you believe he wrote those letters at that time. The upheaval in

western Europe was not over. the French could not decide how many republics can

fit on the head of a pin, Germany was divided, the Russians were close, the

Berlin Airlift had happened.

Don't tell me, the times are the same. Do not tell be our economic system is

either socialistic or communistic, although both could survive in a democracy

(to whit, Western Europe). But we are not IT

Hate to differ with you but WW2 was very much on Jung's mind, before, during and

after. You cannot turn facts around and apply them to our present situation, or

we will be arguing on " what does " is " mean.

Toni

> This is all very good stuff and I am eager to write more, but must wait a day

> or so because I am busy with other things. But I have to say that Toni is

> wrong about one thing: the quotes I cited were written in 1957, so they do

> not relate to things happening in Germany, but only their aftermath. They

> were among Jung's later writings and he did not change his mind. They are as

> timely today as they were then..

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Dan, I do love our differing posts. Adds spice to my life.

When Plato and Aristotle wrote, their vision was seen by them through their

experiences.

They have terrifically wise thoughts. So, does Jung. But when we apply them to

different

times and different circumstances we have to take their milieu into

account.Especially

during times of great upheaval. Certain ideas never age, and are seen as truth

by future

generations, and as long as we deal in the realm of the mind or soul we can

transport

their ideas.

Jung's ideas about world events, and their possible solutions can not apply " en

mass " to

us here and now. When he speaks about the psyche I listen, when he speaks about

the idea

we should all return to our own plots of land, and live a life impossible today,

I get his

meaning, but must say his idealism is not much help. If you remember Albert

Einstein had a

lot to say about then present politics. His ideas were plebeian, totally

different to his

physics. Even geniuses have their fields of expertise, and neither Jung, nor

Freud nor

Einstein were the oracle of wisdom outside those fields.

I cannot accept everything Jung says, because I must deal with reality as it is

today. The

elitist notion that oligarchy was the best for of government was unfortunately

not seen

through. My idea of equality, make me unable to accept his preferences,though

they appeal

tremendously. They would not work in real life, as even he knew. Power is still

power and

it corrupts the elite as much as any other man.

For my sins, I had to read the laws ( Plato) also, both in philosophy and

political

science. He would not have been elected to Congress, probably not even to city

manager.

The Swiss men who are part of the Swiss standing army as civilians may take

their weapons

home, but NOT the ammunition. (I have a Swiss son in law who served his time in

the

" bicycle corps " can you believe.? Riding a bicycle up those mountains?. The ski

corps is

the top, then comes the bicycle corps in status among the Swiss.)

Of course, Jung wasn't anti gun. There was no murder or mayhem in Zurich.

Hunters need to

hunt. But no one rioted because the government did not sanction hand guns in

church.

About the ability of a psychologist to be a politician.... At least a politician

realizes

what he can get away with or not. Chairman Greenspan Jung was not. The federal

reserve was

not Jung's strength. And I doubt he read s, or shuttered at the idea of

" supply-side

economics. Give me a break he was not the font of all wisdom on every subject!

If he considered India the best hope or the best regime, he must have been

looking at

least 1000 years back or a 1000 years ahead. There is a country with atom bombs

where the

caste system is still embedded, the literacy rate, the poverty rates and

and medical help for the largest portion of the population is abysmal, and whose

brightest

citizens come to the US as soon as they can get in.

By the way, I challenge your opinion that a good psychologist would be a good

political

scientist. In general psychologists can understand our complexes, our urge to

rage and

mayhem. they can understand that each man's needs meaning in his life. He deals

with a

person. One at a time. He may know how mobs work, and mass psychology in theory,

but do

you think he would have forecast this latest election mess? How would he deal

with the

underprivileged in our society, how would he compromise child welfare agencies

with the

small amount of tax money they receive?. How would he know the feasible from the

impossible in $ dollars. How could he compromise his principals as all people in

government must? Do you think Jung would be able to tell the Senate how to work

together?

Tell Saddam Hussain to behave himself...or else? What eminent psychologist would

be able

to decide when to up the interest rate? on what basis, besides a crystal ball?

How about

labor strife? all the psychology in the world will not help intransigent

parties. You

would know why they were the way they were but not on how to resolve the

problem, and

certainly not in the usual time frame.

If psychologists were so good at political life, why haven't they been drafted

by some

party? Manly because they handle people one by one, and they would have to

compromise

themselves too much to remain good psychologists.As far as feudalism as a great

system is

concerned. You were kidding, weren't you? You want some strong Lord with all his

psychological, social emotional economic problems to be responsible for your

life? Serfs

had no freedom at all. They came with the land and they did as they were told in

a social

contract that gave them relative security, but damn little else. You could not

even leave

to visit a relative without authority from someone. And you died for causes

when you

fought which meant nothing to you. If you were a knight, you fought when told

to, and

played silly games to see who was stronger. You swooned over ladies with whom

you could

never speak alone, and you were ruled by the Church in every imaginable way.

Except for

monks few were very literate, even if there had been books for commoners or

better. as a

serf, you would not have been allowed to take time away from the lord's fields.

You had to

be satisfied with " pie in the sky by and by " and a religion which invaded every

item in

your life more with superstition than spiritual practices.

If you were an artisan, only good luck or patronage got you into a guild. you

could not

work unless you belonged, and after a long apprenticeship. Your father must have

done the

same work and your son would do it.

And living in the polis? great if you were well born and clever. But what if you

were a

slave? or a woman? or just a peasant scratching the earth for enough to eat?

Great life.

You are a Romantic at heart, Dan, the past was always best, especially when seen

only at a

distance, without the nitty gritty of daily existence. You can't go home again.

As far as Jung's feeling about living in paradise. It matters where you are

coming from.

He had plenty of everything, and was not insecure. he had all that we consider

the good

life. Even paradise has an occasional snake, or mental depression.

Toni

Dan wrote:

> Oh, come now (Maynard G. Krebs voice). Is Plato dated? Is Aristotle?

> Jung is for the ages.

>

> Perhaps Plato's " real " book on practical government is the Laws.

>

> >Jung wasn't anti-gun as far as I know. He was Swiss, and I believe the

> Swiss are wont to say that the *are* their army.

>

> Psychological prophet he may have been, but as an economist, world trader,

> > or democratic politician, he was a man of his time.

>

> Good try ;-). Unfortunately, one cannot be a first rate psychologist

> without being an at least competent political scientist (and that

> encompasses economics).

>

> But what he saw and heard above all, through all the particularities,

> was human nature or the human soul, which is permanent - or if it isn't,

> it surely doesn't change in 50 years.

>

> Although Jung, who lived a century ago, did not by any means consider it

> to be or have been paradise.

>

> I don't see us as ranting and raving, just resisting. I haven't started

> shopping for my ranch in Alaska yet ;-

>

> What about Jung's description of the medieval " world " where God was in

> his heaven and man his favored son (as I posted). Wasn't that better?

> (Jung seems to have thought so - was he wrong?0 Or the polis, where the

> emphasis was on fostering human individual excellence rather than safety

> and security? We have a decent system, agreed, but I think it's a

> stretch to call it the " best yet devised. " .

>

> In one of his very last interviews, Jung describes Russia as possibly

> the worst extant regime, and India as the best (from the point of view

> of fertile ground for the development of the individual). I have always

> found that fascinating

>

> Dan

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni,

You wrote:

>

If you remember Albert Einstein had a

> lot to say about then present politics. His ideas were plebeian, totally

different to his

> physics. Even geniuses have their fields of expertise, and neither Jung, nor

Freud nor

> Einstein were the oracle of wisdom outside those fields.

I've seen this comparison before. I think there's a problem with it. One

can be a great physicist and still be a fool when it comes to politics,

because physics and politics have not much to do with each other. This

is not the case with psychology and politics, however, which could be

described as two sides of the same coin. The true psychologist is the

expert on the human soul, on human nature. Human nature has both

individual and collective or political aspects. How could one be a

genuine psychologist, one who understands the soul, if he did not

understand the collective, political aspects of the soul? A

" psychologist " who understands nothing of politics is not comparable to

a physicist who understands nothing of politics. Rather, he would be

more like a physicist who knows nothing of math.

>

> I cannot accept everything Jung says, because I must deal with reality as it

is today. The

> elitist notion that oligarchy was the best for of government was unfortunately

not seen

> through. My idea of equality, make me unable to accept his preferences,though

they appeal

> tremendously. They would not work in real life, as even he knew.

On the contrary, he gives an example of how they work in real life -

Britain. Hence he praises the British regime. He states that it is

precisely when the " aristocratic ideal " is lost, as it has been in this

century, that things begin not to work. I think that he meant what he

said.

>Power is still power and

> it corrupts the elite as much as any other man.

> For my sins, I had to read the laws ( Plato) also, both in philosophy and

political

> science. He would not have been elected to Congress, probably not even to city

manager.

Yet he has ruled the West to a substantial degree for all of these

centuries.

>

> About the ability of a psychologist to be a politician.... At least a

politician realizes

> what he can get away with or not.

I think I said " political scientist, " not politician. They are not quite

the same. The former understands human nature especially in its

collective aspects, and in a (for want of a better term) " theoretical "

sense. The successful practical politician, to be sure, necessarily also

has some understanding of human nature, even if that understanding is

implicit or intuitive or purely practical. That said, I don't know that

Jung was such a bad practical politician. He dealt with the Nazis and

lived to tell about it.

>Chairman Greenspan Jung was not. The federal reserve was

> not Jung's strength. And I doubt he read s, or shuttered at the idea of

" supply-side

> economics. Give me a break he was not the font of all wisdom on every

subject!

>

> If he considered India the best hope or the best regime, he must have been

looking at

> least 1000 years back or a 1000 years ahead. There is a country with atom

bombs where the

> caste system is still embedded, the literacy rate, the poverty rates and

> and medical help for the largest portion of the population is abysmal, and

whose brightest

> citizens come to the US as soon as they can get in.

Well, the Westernized technocratic types, anyway. I don't see the yogis

coming en masse. I think that Jung was, however, talking about

contemporary India when he made the remark (1961). I don't have the text

with me tonight - it's at the office. I will try to post it tomorrow and

you can judge for yourself.

>

> By the way, I challenge your opinion that a good psychologist would be a good

political

> scientist. In general psychologists can understand our complexes, our urge to

rage and

> mayhem. they can understand that each man's needs meaning in his life. He

deals with a

> person. One at a time. He may know how mobs work, and mass psychology in

theory, but do

> you think he would have forecast this latest election mess?

Even the " professional " political scientists couldn't do that - but when

I speak of political science in this context, I mean the term in an

older sense. I refer to a " science " (broadly understood, just as Jung

understood psychological science broadly) of human nature in its

collective aspects.

How would he deal with the

> underprivileged in our society, how would he compromise child welfare agencies

with the

> small amount of tax money they receive?.

I have no idea. I think he tended to think of " underprivileged " in

psychological terms - for example his hypothetical American worker who

thinks of himself as a " poor devil " because he has only one car while

his boss has three. There is no material poverty worth talking about in

either America or Western Europe, so the problem wouldn't come up,

except as a psychological problem (if he were a politician in India,

where there is genuine material poverty, that would be a different

matter).

>How would he know the feasible from the

> impossible in $ dollars. How could he compromise his principals as all people

in

> government must? Do you think Jung would be able to tell the Senate how to

work together?

If anyone could do it, he could, although it is doubtful how often

anyone could do it. Just as well - more gridlock means less mischief, to

my way of thinking.

> Tell Saddam Hussain to behave himself...or else?

Jung definitely understood this one - Yes.

>What eminent psychologist would be able

> to decide when to up the interest rate? on what basis, besides a crystal ball?

How about

> labor strife? all the psychology in the world will not help intransigent

parties. You

> would know why they were the way they were but not on how to resolve the

problem, and

> certainly not in the usual time frame.

> If psychologists were so good at political life, why haven't they been drafted

by some

> party?

In my observation, most of those licensed by the state to practice

psychology are not psychologists in the sense that they understand " the

logos of the soul, " or even take that seriously as a goal. Many could

not manage a corner grocery store, I agree. They misunderstand politics

as thoroughly as they misunderstand the human soul in general. Skinner -

perhaps America's most eminent " psychologist " to date - would certainly

not be fit to govern. *Walden II*, Skinner's political work, betrays a

profound misunderstanding of human nature, in my opinion. However, I am

not talking here about psychologists in this ordinary (dare I say

vulgar?) sense, but about true psychologists such as Jung.

As far as feudalism as a great system is

> concerned. You were kidding, weren't you?

I took the idea from Jung. Jung takes it seriously, I take it seriously.

No I wasn't kidding. I think that Jung's point was that there were

compensations for the lack of widespread wealth in the middle ages. The

dirt-poor serf had riches of a kind that many contemporary boat-owning

laborers in the West currently lack.

>You want some strong Lord with all his

> psychological, social emotional economic problems to be responsible for your

life? Serfs

> had no freedom at all. They came with the land and they did as they were told

in a social

> contract that gave them relative security, but damn little else. You could not

even leave

> to visit a relative without authority from someone. And you died for causes

when you

> fought which meant nothing to you. If you were a knight, you fought when told

to, and

> played silly games to see who was stronger. You swooned over ladies with whom

you could

> never speak alone, and you were ruled by the Church in every imaginable way.

I believe that the Church's rule was much less thorough-going in

practice than you suggest, especially for the knights and nobles. Jung

somewhere talks about how surprised he was when he realized that many

Catholics didn't actually believe Church dogma, they just went along

with it publicly. In any case, the Church knows a thing or two (or

three) about human nature, and one can certainly imagine worse rulers,

esp. now.

>Except for

> monks few were very literate, even if there had been books for commoners or

better. as a

> serf, you would not have been allowed to take time away from the lord's

fields.

Again, I think you overstate the case - there were plenty of holidays

and " fallow time. " But that consideration is not, I think, even to the

point. The points is, as Jung said in what I quoted, that man at that

time lived psychologically at the center of the cosmos. Now that place

has been lost. There is nothing that modernity offers that can

compensate for that loss, much as I enjoy computers, cars, hifi

equipment and other techno-toys.

>You had to

> be satisfied with " pie in the sky by and by "

It wasn't just by-and-by. It was also here-and-now (or rather,

then-and-there). The world itself was numinous, at least if Jung was

right.

> And living in the polis? great if you were well born and clever. But what if

you were a

> slave? or a woman? or just a peasant scratching the earth for enough to eat?

Socrates would talk even to such as these. What else would you want ;-)?

It is true, though, that the polis was more about fostering excellence -

the " well born and clever, " if you like - than universal comfort,

property and security. But what's wrong with that? The latter goal, by

itself, strikes me as rather contemptible - a " city for pigs, " as

Glaucon tells Socrates in the Republic.

> Great life.

> You are a Romantic at heart, Dan, the past was always best, especially when

seen only at a

> distance, without the nitty gritty of daily existence. You can't go home

again.

> As far as Jung's feeling about living in paradise.

I don't think he said medieval Europe was paradise. He does at the very

least strongly imply, however, that as humans we Westerners have lost

much since then.

>It matters where you are coming from.

> He had plenty of everything, and was not insecure. he had all that we consider

the good

> life.

Yes he did - but so did Socrates, who lived, by his own admission, in

" thousand fold poverty. " And that's part of the point. Universal wealth

is nice, I suppose, but it might not be worth what it cost.

Regards,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

I think we do ourselves a tremendous disservice when we look at Jung's

political views with a tolerant amusement, characterizing them as the musings

of a tired, depressed old man because they do not mesh with our own ideas.

Jung's work has changed the lives of most of the people here and it is

impossible not to revere him. When he wrote about politics, like most of

what he wrote, it was not just politics. The work must be seen on many

levels. His political ideas are a macrocosmic vision of the individual

psyche. He was talking about the inner as well as the outer. He was

addressing the Self as well as the body politic. I am sure Jung got

depressed sometimes, just like the rest of us, but for him depression was an

opportunity to work through his complexes. I think nothing he wrote should

be dismissed without serious reflection.

Jung understood that the individual needs to be liberated from the

collective. The collective psyche as well as the collective state or nation.

He believed in the power of individuation as the means to overcome

depression and to become whole and he recognized that identification with the

collective inhibits liberation.

No one would dispute the fact that the government often provides

remedies that are beneficial. Prozac is also sometimes useful in

(temporarily) overcoming depression. In the long run, however, the cure may

be far worse than the disease. Should we prevent people from taking

antidepressants if they wish to do so? On the contrary. But we also need to

leave room for Jungian analysis for those who are willing to invest the time

and the money in that often painful process. One size does not fit all.

Unfortunately, our government does not believe in choice when it comes to

Social Security and Medicare. One size fits all. Pay up or else.

I do not advocate ending these programs for those who want them, but no

in the government one is asking my opinion or yours. How many of you are in

favor of spending $170 million to repair the " state of the art " USS Cole

which was nearly destroyed by a little motorboat? Is it worth it? Has

anyone considered how many people's yearly salaries add up to that kind of

money? And for what?

My goal in initiating this discussion was to get people to " think

different. " As the posts continue to flow, I see that I was not unsuccessful.

[Guest guest]

Toni, Dan, and others...

I may not be around to see it in full bloom, but I suspect one of the

biggest shake-ups to prevailing philosophical and psychological opinions

will emerge out of the current study of the human genome. It won't surprise

me at all to see in the near future people hooked up to computerized devices

that can not only read one's genome, but change it by pushing a few

buttons - carefully, my good man, carefully.

In addition to being able to replace genes that cause disease, we will see

that genes influence archetype constellations, which will prove to differ

ever so slightly from one person to the next. We will understand that not

everyone can individuate to the same degree and in the same direction as

everybody else. We will better understand the psyche and nature of a Carl

Jung vis-a-vis a drive-by shooter. In short, we will be able to see the

nature of the collective unconscious in a way that Jung could not even dream

of because of limitations of his time.

This won't replace all mystical considerations about the psyche, of course,

but it will push some of them backward or forward.

On the social front, the ever-upward health care cost spiral will fall on

its head. People will no longer need medicines. The average senior will have

options and freedoms impossible today. Maybe the Oldsmobile will be revived.

They'll be able to buy one. Things get tough and then they get better.

Then there is another problem. And so it goes. " Potweet. "

Cov

P.S. Benji, listen carefully. I have only one word to say to you, boy:

" informatics. "

Re: What Jung said

>Dear Dan, Thanks for the quotes. I printed your post so I could understand

where Jung

>was coming from. All I can say, at the moment, is he did not live to see

the US in

>the 21st century. We have come a long way since he died, and some of his

observation,

>are dated.

>I had to smile about his comment of oligarchy and aristocracy. If (I could

get away

>with it,) I might agree. But this is the era of the " common man " and one

and all are

>here to remind us of it. I always told you I thought Plato had a great

answer, except

>there is no such thing as a benevolent despot, except in his mind.

>Secondly , we 21st century citizens seem to care more for individual

freedom than

>stability. Whatever would Tom deLay and Heston of the NRA say to Jung???

How about

>those state militias?

>

>We have the Federal Reserve, which was not what it is now in Jung's day.

The chances

>of a run away inflation a la 1929-33 in Europe is impossible here as long

as the

>Federal Reserve has the last say on interest rates.( which as you know,

structure the

>exchange rates) The laws put into effect in the New Deal protect bank

assets. There

>will not be a run on the banks in this country.

>We must be doing something unheard of in the 1950 " s. An unemployment rate

at an all

>time low, and prosperity fueled by a run away consumer spending. Reread

the economic

>history of the first half of the 20th Century during which Jung lived. He

was

>reacting to what he saw in front of him, and consequently what he was

afraid would

>continue. Psychological prophet he may have been, but as an economist,

world trader,

>or democratic politician, he was a man of his time.

>His idealism is wonderful. but like reality around us, it doesn't have to

deal with

>technology, and manufacturing and commerceWe cannot return to the

city-states of

>Greece. The noble savage is alive and well and living in New York, Chicago

or LA.

>We can no more go back to feudal times, or to the small family plot, than

we can turn

>off scientists, chemists and the men who make commerce run at full speed.

>

>Please remember where Jung was, and what he saw and heard. Listen to

Churchill or

>FDR. Fear abounded in those dark days from mass riots, to starvation in

some

>countries, and then to all out war and beastliness unenvisioned by the so

called

> " modern, cultured, educated people of this world.

>I do not think this is the best of all possible worlds. When we do away

with greed,

>fear and violence, maybe we will have heaven on earth. In the mean time,

.... the

>doomsayers were wrong. There is no crash, none of the magnitude of 1929-33

in the

>world, the countries of the world could feed their populations with the new

>discoveries being made to help nature( they don't because the use food as a

means of

>power.) The latest polls show most Americans satisfied with their

lives...Surprise,

>surprise.

>On the other hand, we live in a culture gone mad with consumerism, we

hardly

>appreciate our intellects except where we could use them to make more

money, We have

>the nuclear bomb, and we could blow ourselves and every other living thing

to hell.

>If we don't do that, perhaps we will clone ourselves, or give ourselves

heart

>transplants to make us realize what we are doing.

>

>My point is that you and and all of us who live in what would have

been

>considered paradise until a century ago, stop ranting and raving about the

loss of a

>few individual small liberties, which is part of this country's social

contract, and

>try not to undermine a government that is working( somewhat. )You are not

>Henry and you don't have to chose death if you can't have all the liberty

you think

>you deserve.you want.

>

>Dan, I am sorry if I come on too strong, but I was there. The day I was

born the

>Credit Anstalt in Vienna crashed and brought on the worst depression ever

that was

>the first time, (but not the last that my father lost almost everything).

On my

>birthday.The communist riots started in Europe because men needed jobs, and

because

>the money was no good for buying bread. I was there when the German's came

up with

>the answer to economic hard times, and chose a leader to make things

better. I was

>also there when the humiliation of those not fit to live began, when we

again lost

>everything except our lives, and I was in the land of the free and the

home of the

>brave when it all ended.(My father started for the third time and made it

again.)

>I can understand the worries of the old(I am old) and the frustration of

the young

>for having to pay " high taxes', because I have 4 adult children, and we

also still

>pay some heavy ones. I can understand the feeling of insecurity that comes

with being

>one sickness or hospital stay away from poverty and want. I can

commiserate with the

>mentally ill who were thrown out of institutions to fend for themselves on

their own

>in the streets, and I worked in a school where the only meal the kids had

was the one

>served at school.

>We have the best system yet devised by fallen man, and we are a hope to

millions of

>others. So, lets keep our dissatisfactions in proper focus.

>Sorry, but I feel very thankful to be here and a citizen for 57

years.Regardless

>what Jung said in his depression, and he was not the only one in those dark

days,

>This nation is not a monster. And big nations do not have to be a

catastrophe.

>

>Toni

>

>Dan Watkins wrote

>

>>

>> " A decent oligarchy - call it aristoccracy if you like - is the most

>> ideal form of government.... Without the aristicratic ideal there is no

>> stability " (CG Jung Speaking, p. 93).

>>

>> " (T)he time comes when the State must make fake money. First it is

>> called 'inflation.' Then, because that is unpopular, 'devaluation.' now

>> they are calling it 'dilution.' But it is all the same thing - fake

>> money. Thus you have insecurity. Savings become illusory. since nature

>> is aristocratic, the valuable part of the population is reduced to the

>> level of misery. Communistic or Socialistic democracy is an upheaval of

>> the unfit against attempts at order. Consider the stay-in strikes in

>> France, the former Socialistic upheavals in Germany and Italy. This

>> state of disorder called democratic freedom or liberalsim brings its own

>> reactions - enforced order " (ibid, p. 92).

>>

>> " With Hitler, you are scared.

>> . He is not an individual; he is a whole nation " (ibid, p.

>> 128).

>>

>> " How to save your democratic USA? It must, of course, be saved, else we

>> all go under. You must keep away from the craze, avoid the infection.

>> Keep you army and navy large, but save them. If war comes, wait. America

>> must keep big armed forces to help keep the world at peace, or to decide

>> the war if it comes. you are the last resort of Western democracy "

>> (ibid, p. 133).

>>

>> .. That's what a nation is: a monster. Everybody

>> ought to fear a nation. It is a horrible thing. How can such a thing

>> have honor or a word? That's why I am for *small* nations. Small nations

>> mean small catastrophes. Big nations mean big catastrophes " (ibid, p.

>> 134 - 135).

>>

>> " The Germans display a specific weakness in the face of these demons

>> because of their incredible suggestibility. This shows itself in their

>> love of obedience, their supine submission to commnads, which are only

>> another form of suggestion.... (T)he Germans are profoundly troubled by

>> a national inferiority complex, which they try to compensate by

>> megalomania.... It is a typical adolesecent psychology, apparent not

>> only in the extraordinary prevalence of homosexuality but in the absence

>> of an anima figure in German literature (the great exception here is

>> Goethe) " (ibid, p 152-153).

>>

>> " Decentralization... allows for small social units. Every man should

>> have his own plot of land so that the instincts can come alive again. To

>> own land is important psychologically, and there is no substitute for

>> ..Our civilizing potential has led us down the wrong path.

>

>>

>> All too often an American worker who owns only one car considers himself

>> a poor devil, because his boss hass two or three cars. This is

>> symptomatic of pointless striving for possessions " (ibid, p. 202).

>>

>> " " We may be, in the West, in very favorable social conditions, and we are

>> as miserable as possible - inside " (ibid, p 263).

>>

>> " (A)s the world in general, particularly America, is extraverted as

>> hell, the introvert has no place, because he doesn't know that he

>> beholds the world from within " (ibid, p. 303).

>>

>> " I don't want to play the prophet, but you see, *the* great problem

>> before us is over-population, not the atom bomb. The atom bomb,

>> teleologically considered, makes provision for the disposal of the

>> surplus.... This atom bomb business ... is terribly characteristic of

>> Uranos, the Lord of unpredictable events " (ibid, p 375).

>>

>> " Civilization does not consist in progress as such and in mindless

>> destruction of the old values, but in developing and refining the good

>> that has been won " (CW 11, p. 292).

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> " The levelling down of the masses through suppression of the

>> aristocratic or hierarchical structure natural to a community is bound,

>> sooner or later, to lead to disaster. For, when everything outstanding

>> is levelled down, the signposts are lost, and the longing to be led

>> becomes an urgent necessity " (CW 17, p. 248).

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> " All that gush about man's innate goodness, which had addled so many

>> brains after the dogma of original sin was no longer understood, was

>> blown to the winds by Freud, and the little that remains will, let us

>> hope, be driven out for good and all by the barbarism of the twentieth

>> century " (CW 15, p. 69).

>>

>> " How totally different did the world appear to medieval man! For him the

>> earth was eternally fixed and at rest in the center of the universe,

>> circled by a sun that solicitously bestowed its warmth. Men were all

>> children of God under the loving care of the Most High, who prepared

>> them for eternal blessedness; and all knew exactly what they should do

>> and how they should conduct themselves in order to rise from a

>> corruptible world to an incorruptible and joyous existence " (CW 10, p.

>> 162).

>>

>> Ah, it is to weep.

>>

>> Dan

>>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Bo, others: I'm very sorry, I meant to delete the messages I was responding

to under my other post. I agree that it makes a mess when you just let them

build up.