What Jung said

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni,

You wrote:

>

I continue to gasp at what I believe to

> be a superficial view of poverty in western Europe than under our almost

unbridles capitalism.

> For example, this morning's newspaper had an article about the " working poor "

who had to resort

> to soup kitchens and food banks to make it to the end of the month, if illness

or emergency

> came along.

The salient words, in my view, are " resort to soup kitchens and food

banks, " not " left to starve in the street unsuccored " . What's wrong with

feeding children through food banks?

>It may not be the starvation of Ethiopia, but it must still greatly affect the

> children of these working peolpe...I am not even speaking of those who will

not, or cannot

> work. You just brush them off as no " big deal " . Would you feel that was at a

minimum pay job

> with a family to feed and clothe?

I wouldn't have a family if the best I could do were a minimum wage job.

It's a matter of responsibility or prudence in my opinion. My own father

gave up journalism, which he loved, and went into business because he

didn't think he could earn enough as a journalist to take care of a

family. I have always thought that Bob Cratchit was silly to have five

children (or seven, or whatever it was) on thirty shillings a week,

haven't you? Still, all that said, no one is suggesting that we " let 'em

starve. " See soup kitchen remarks above.

>

> As far as Jung's special and political views. Well, I must say, he was an

acute observer, but

> he observed from a distance. All his great knowledge would not change the

outcome of our wars,

> or even our recent mess of an election race. It is not enough to know why

someone acts like a

> horses patutie,. Understanding Saddam's soul will make his own soul more

aware, but it sure

> won't change how Hussain treats his people.

No, but it might teach us how to deal with Saddam's like (hint: Patriot

missiles). Jung observed the war from a distance, alright ... a distance

of about sixty miles, lol. He could have observed it from America had he

wished, with three thousand miles of ocean between himself and the

nearest storm trooper, but that wasn't his style.

>

> As long as politics is the art of the possible, and governments carry out

their duties to a

> diverse population, in a very inexact way....no amount of psychoanalysis, no

philosophy will

> suddenly change how we deal with each other.

Poltics is " the art of the possible, sure enough. Agreed.

( Look how long it took Jung to understand where

> Hitler was headed. At first he praised him. His sight was no better than

anyone else's.)

I know of no place where Jung praises Hitler - what do you have in

mind?. Jung may have held a " wait and see " attitude regarding Hitler

initially, as did many, but by 1934 - pretty early in the game, if you

ask me - he was warning the world about the grave danger posed by Hitler

and Nazism.

>

> I will continue to believe that Jung and his followers can change the way man

thinks and

> acts....one person at a time. It is a long, slow process to help one person to

become more

> conscious.All the knowledge of human nature will not change a generation. None

of the " greats "

> tried to change the pace of history.

I'm not sure what you mean here by the " pace " of history, but if you

mean that none of the greats tried to influence the future or guide the

course of man, I would disagree.

>We move at the speed of our slowest member.

If this were true we would all still be savages, would we not?

>

> Even our " greats " were human beings. They too had to deal with their own

environment from which

> they sprang, and it shaped their point of view, as much as all that brain

power did. They will

> make a difference to those few who read them, study them and try to implement

what they have

> learned.

> I will accept each of them in their area of expertise, but for the last 100

years England has

> not been an oligarchy.

But the 'aristocratic ideal " had not yet died out in Britain when Jung

spoke. Maybe it hasn't yet. I think there's still a ghost of it - and

maybe more than a ghost - even in America.

>Not since the Reform act of 1832, and the two later reform acts. However

> much he rants and raves, neither Jung nor any other " great " can keep society

from marching on.

He doesn't rant and rave. It seems to me that while his views may be

seen as radical, his speech is always tempered.

> This was the " century of the common man " whether we like it or not,

No argument there.

whether it is better or

> worse than what it was.

> Not hard to deal with the Nazis from a neutral country, where he was an

immediate threat to no

> one.

His books were burned in France, and word was that he was on the Nazis'

list for when they got to Switzerland. Jung was stuck tenuously between

Germany and Italy, in a country ill-equipped to defend itself. Do you

think that the Nazis would not have taken Switzerland, had the war gone

their way? A country's true " neutrality " is ultimately a function of its

ability to defend itself.

>

> I also do not interpret history as you say Jung does, and I would have to say,

I have

> authorities on my side as well...as well as my own studies. I further object

to the idea that

> all modern culture has done is negative.

But I don't suggest that, and neither does Jung. Only a fool would deny

the advantages of modernity, and Jung was no fool. What one might object

to is the notion that all that modernity has done is *positive*, or that

it has been mostly positive.Yes, all men and women now have their

" rights, " or so they say, but at the cost of their place in the cosmos.

I'm not sure it was worth it, to repeat. It reminds me in a way of

Castro, who taught everyone to read, but took all the books away, lol.

One step forward, two steps back. Having a roof over on'es head and

enough to eat is not, of course, as you say beloe, a reflection of

excessive materialism. But people historically have generally had these

things in well run regimes (even tribal regimes), barring unfortunate

weather, etc.

>

> Dan, I still want to discuss another provocative letter of your , but haven't

time now.

OK, looking forward to it.

Regards,

Dan

> Toni

>

[Guest guest]

Covert,

You wrote:

>

> 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.

>

Yes, it remains to be seen whether we will even have human beings for

long after we begin tampering with the genetic code. Fearsome stuff,

indeed.

Regards,

Dan Watkins

[Guest guest]

Dan, You are the reason I believe in freedom of speech and freedom to learn and

to teach. It

continues to amaze me that you and I can look at life from an entirely different

angle. We

consider the same events, books, people but we see them through our own eyes. I

will not change

your way of looking at life and you will not change mine, It always amazes me

that two

educated, well read, thinking people can come to opposite conclusions from the

same points of

consideration.

I, am not of course giving up, or letting you think you convinced me. You

haven't, naturally

because I interpret words, history people differently. I continue to gasp at

what I believe to

be a superficial view of poverty in western Europe than under our almost

unbridles capitalism.

For example, this morning's newspaper had an article about the " working poor "

who had to resort

to soup kitchens and food banks to make it to the end of the month, if illness

or emergency

came along. It may not be the starvation of Ethiopia, but it must still greatly

affect the

children of these working peolpe...I am not even speaking of those who will not,

or cannot

work. You just brush them off as no " big deal " . Would you feel that was at a

minimum pay job

with a family to feed and clothe?

As far as Jung's special and political views. Well, I must say, he was an acute

observer, but

he observed from a distance. All his great knowledge would not change the

outcome of our wars,

or even our recent mess of an election race. It is not enough to know why

someone acts like a

horses patutie,. Understanding Saddam's soul will make his own soul more aware,

but it sure

won't change how Hussain treats his people.

As long as politics is the art of the possible, and governments carry out their

duties to a

diverse population, in a very inexact way....no amount of psychoanalysis, no

philosophy will

suddenly change how we deal with each other. ( Look how long it took Jung to

understand where

Hitler was headed. At first he praised him. His sight was no better than anyone

else's.)

I will continue to believe that Jung and his followers can change the way man

thinks and

acts....one person at a time. It is a long, slow process to help one person to

become more

conscious.All the knowledge of human nature will not change a generation. None

of the " greats "

tried to change the pace of history. We move at the speed of our slowest member.

Even our " greats " were human beings. They too had to deal with their own

environment from which

they sprang, and it shaped their point of view, as much as all that brain power

did. They will

make a difference to those few who read them, study them and try to implement

what they have

learned.

I will accept each of them in their area of expertise, but for the last 100

years England has

not been an oligarchy. Not since the Reform act of 1832, and the two later

reform acts. However

much he rants and raves, neither Jung nor any other " great " can keep society

from marching on.

This was the " century of the common man " whether we like it or not, whether it

is better or

worse than what it was.

Not hard to deal with the Nazis from a neutral country, where he was an

immediate threat to no

one.

I also do not interpret history as you say Jung does, and I would have to say, I

have

authorities on my side as well...as well as my own studies. I further object to

the idea that

all modern culture has done is negative. There are some hugh strides in basic

human rights from

both the feudal times, Greek times or anywhere up to the present. Materialism,

per se is a

problem, but having enough to eat, and a solid roof over ones head does not come

under the

title " materialism " Man has not been a monk or an Indian yogi, or even a poverty

stricken

philosopher. Further those roles are a choice, The lot of common man was not.

Man is a very

human frail animal, and we can not judge 5000 yearsof history as either wrong or

right. Its

that old dichotomy again: the balance between extremes.

The past was not better, to my mind, but it was different. (Also much

scholarship and

discoveries have been published since Jung was at the university.)nostalgia is

normal, but I

believe not based on facts.

Dan, I still want to discuss another provocative letter of your , but haven't

time now.

Toni

Dan Watkins wrote:

>

> " 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.

>

> I don't know that

> Jung was such a bad practical politician. He dealt with the Nazis and

> lived to tell about it.

>

> . 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

>

> However, I am

> not talking here about psychologists in this ordinary (dare I say

> vulgar?) sense, but about true psychologists such as Jung.

>

>

> 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.

>

>

> 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.

>

> 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.

>

> 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.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Can't stay out of this one - sorry!

> ( Look how long it took Jung to understand where

> > Hitler was headed. At first he praised him. His sight was no better than

anyone else's.)

>

> I know of no place where Jung praises Hitler - what do you have in

> mind?. Jung may have held a " wait and see " attitude regarding Hitler

> initially, as did many, but by 1934 - pretty early in the game, if you

> ask me - he was warning the world about the grave danger posed by Hitler

> and Nazism.

Dan, you are right on the money here. Jung was accused of " praising Hitler "

in the interview on Radio Berlin in 1933 (in C. G. Jung Speaking, pp 73-79).

The reason is because he quoted Hitler, and the quote is always taken out of

context without the (albeit slightly veiled) words of caution which

immediately followed. He also criticised Freud and Adler in this interview -

so people have blown it up out of all proportion and claimed that he was

pro-Nazi and anti-Jewish. DUH! What he actually said about Hitler was this:

" As Hitler said recently, the leader must be able to be alone and must have

the courage to go his own way. *But if he doesn't know himself, how is he to

lead others? That is why the true leader is always one who has the courage

to be himself, and can look not only others in the eye but also himself.* "

(emphasis mine).

People are also getting overexcited because he used the term " Der Fuehrer "

for " leader " . Ahem - that is a perfectly normal word, before Hitler chose to

use it as meaning him and him alone! Toni - do you know another German word

for " leader " - because I don't!

>

> His books were burned in France, and word was that he was on the Nazis'

> list for when they got to Switzerland. Jung was stuck tenuously between

> Germany and Italy, in a country ill-equipped to defend itself. Do you

> think that the Nazis would not have taken Switzerland, had the war gone

> their way? A country's true " neutrality " is ultimately a function of its

> ability to defend itself.

Some of his books were banned in Germany, once Hitler realised that he

couldn't manipulate him as the Nazis' psychologist. And, he was certainly on

a hit list. Hitler hoped to use *him*, and even planned to meet him on one

of his visits to Germany, but cancelled. Shortly afterwards, certain of

Jung's books were banned. This leads many people (myself included) to

believe that Hitler was informed of certain passages in Jung's work which

contradicted Nazi aims.

Jung was sufficiently alarmed about the Nazi threat to move his wife and

children deep into the countryside during the war, although he himself

remained where he was and fulfilled his professional obligations.

fa

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni,

You wrote:

>

> Dear Dan'

>

> I do not believe that a man must submerge his pride to accept hand-outs when

he is capable of a

> day's work. You wouldn't have children if you couldn't afford them. We could

discuss this ad

> infinitum, but just suppose he had those children at the time he had a good

job, that he then lost.

That's what charity is for - I'm not knocking alms giving. It does seem

to me that a state subsidy is just as much a " hand-out, " as you say, as

a box of groceries from Catholic Charities. Going the state-subsidy

route, though, has the added disadvantage of further empowering the

state by making people dependent (excessively, imo) upon it.

>

> I detect a wee bit of judgementalism, Dan, when you speak of the " poor " and

" downtrodden "

I didn't say anything about the " downtrodden " - this is not a term I

would be likely to use. I do think that in Western countries, where

economic opportunity abounds and life is very easy, long-term poverty

does usually reflect a personal problem of some kind - which is not to

say that the deficiency is necessarily characterological, or that it is

the person's " fault. " Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. But, to

repeat, I'm not against being charitable to those who are down on their

luck

>But that

> could be me judging you, so there we are. We are not going to agree, I wager,

on this earth because

> innately we see the world differently. (It took me 40 years to convince my

husband that some of my

> view on welfare and societies ills had merit)

I don't mind if you judge me.

>

> You think Jung would have used missiles against Iraq, Maybe you are right.,

but its is a pretty big

> assumption to make, and I am not sure it is pertinent, or correct.

Well, I don't know whether Jung would have used missiles against Iraq

specifically or not - my point was that Jung understood the necessity

for maintaining the capacity and willingness to use military force in

some international situations. Hence his remarks on the necessity for

America to keep its army and navy large and prepared in the 1930's.

> You are right about one thing, in

> my opinion. Jung did not " rant and rave " to my immediate knowledge. I wasn't

there. And it is hard

> to see that from CW. I apologize at that characterization.

>

> We, as well as " the greats " try to influence the future.That is why we leave

wills and " trusts " I am

> not convinced Socrates had that in his conscious mind. He seemed too humble

for that. But, in

> general , men do try.

> Dan, in the larger backdrop of evil in WW2, having ones books burned only

shows the stupidity of the

> burners, but did not hurt Jung. He was not in personal danger , and >that is

fine with me.

Jung appears to have thought that he was:

" I might add that in 1941 I delivered a lecture before a meeting of

Swiss psychotherapists entitled 'Psychotherapy Today' in which I

condemned the totalitarian state at a time when the victorious panzer

divisions were barely sixty-five miles away, and I knew the Nazis

planned to make short work of me when and if they crossed the Swiss

border " (CG Jung Speaking, p 199-200.)

>

> I hesitate to say this, Dan, but it is only an opinion that mankind has " lost

its place in the

> cosmos "

Yes it is perhaps an opinion, but apparently it was Jung's opinion, and

it appears correct to me too.

>I for example. am part of mankind as are you. You feel you have lost your

place?

Decidedly.

In your

> judgment , modern times are not an unmitigated success. You may be right .

But,I dare say you have

> not the detachment of time and place to make a judgment. We need be about what

we can influence, and

> what we see as truly evil.

Much of modernity is, imo, truly evil. Obviously we cannot simply turn

the clock back, but we can try to learn from our mistakes and mitigate

the damage in future. Before we can try to improve things, we have to

understand where we went wrong, even if not everything is " fixable. "

Regards,

Dan Watkins

[Guest guest]

Dear , Please do not assume that I do not and did not give very serious

reflection to the whole problem of government and political science. I won't

match credentials with you, but I have them. Not everyone will agree on how to

interpret the Bible, so could there ever be total agreement on the works of

Jung.

My " tolerant amusement " which you detected was certainly not for Jung's ideas.

Even with a terrific case of inflation, ( which I pray I am not showing and do

not have) I would not dare make fun of Jung's theories. Tolerant amusement

comes

from a feeling of superiority. I do not and never have believed that I could do

more than sit at Jung's feet to learn. I admit to putting him in a genius

category. I will, however ,not genuflect at the sound of his name.

However much, his depth has helped us in our lives, the man was a man. Even with

him, I must say " if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. " In the last

analysis, we carry his work forward, we do not set it in concrete.

Differences of opinion on what Jung " meant " is not a mortal sin, and you my

friend are not the priest to whom I must confess that I strayed from the path.

If

your goal was as you say to make people " think different " , you assume you are

right. I make no such assumption, about either of our views, yet do give my

opinion on where we think we are headed, and how Jung fits in. I will not

convince you, never wanted to. I do believe it is good to hear the other side.

There are basically two opposite poles from which we view life in general. One

can not exist without the other. But I do believe, we are at liberty to find

the

answers where we find them. You have yours Good. Perhaps some day you will think

differently on some subject. I know I change my views as I learn more , of look

at it from a different angle.

In applying your view of Jung's answers to a current problem, you take a risk.

Your answers will always be from a subjective reading, as will all of ours.

That's ok, as long as you don't hold those answers to the " Truth " .

Toni

said:

> 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.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Dan'

I do not believe that a man must submerge his pride to accept hand-outs when he

is capable of a

day's work. You wouldn't have children if you couldn't afford them. We could

discuss this ad

infinitum, but just suppose he had those children at the time he had a good job,

that he then lost.

I detect a wee bit of judgementalism, Dan, when you speak of the " poor " and

" downtrodden " But that

could be me judging you, so there we are. We are not going to agree, I wager, on

this earth because

innately we see the world differently. (It took me 40 years to convince my

husband that some of my

view on welfare and societies ills had merit)

You think Jung would have used missiles against Iraq, Maybe you are right., but

its is a pretty big

assumption to make, and I am not sure it is pertinent, or correct. You are right

about one thing, in

my opinion. Jung did not " rant and rave " to my immediate knowledge. I wasn't

there. And it is hard

to see that from CW. I apologize at that characterization.

We, as well as " the greats " try to influence the future.That is why we leave

wills and " trusts " I am

not convinced Socrates had that in his conscious mind. He seemed too humble for

that. But, in

general , men do try.

Dan, in the larger backdrop of evil in WW2, having ones books burned only shows

the stupidity of the

burners, but did not hurt Jung. He was not in personal danger , and that is fine

with me. There were

martyrs enough.

I hesitate to say this, Dan, but it is only an opinion that mankind has " lost

its place in the

cosmos " I for example. am part of mankind as are you. You feel you have lost

your place? In your

judgment , modern times are not an unmitigated success. You may be right . But,I

dare say you have

not the detachment of time and place to make a judgment. We need be about what

we can influence, and

what we see as truly evil. The grading of our efforts must be left to those who

come behind us.

There will always be " conservatives " and " liberals " It is a general mind set,

and just proves the

" opposites " that Jung was so fond of.Maybe it is passed on in our genes, maybe

it is the environment

we grew up in, in any case it seems a basically different way to view the world.

Dan Watkins wrote:

>

> The salient words, in my view, are " resort to soup kitchens and food

> banks, " not " left to starve in the street unsuccored " . What's wrong with

> feeding children through food banks?

>

> I wouldn't have a family if the best I could do were a minimum wage job.

> It's a matter of responsibility or prudence in my opinion.

>

> No, but it might teach us how to deal with Saddam's like (hint: Patriot

> missiles).

>

> I'm not sure what you mean here by the " pace " of history, but if you

> mean that none of the greats tried to influence the future or guide the

> course of man, I would disagree.

>

> He doesn't rant and rave. It seems to me that while his views may be

> seen as radical, his speech is always tempered.

>

> His books were burned in France, and word was that he was on the Nazis'

> list for when they got to Switzerland. Jung was stuck tenuously between

> Germany and Italy, in a country ill-equipped to defend itself. Do you

> think that the Nazis would not have taken Switzerland, had the war gone

> their way? A country's true " neutrality " is ultimately a function of its

> ability to defend itself.

>

> . Only a fool would deny

> the advantages of modernity, and Jung was no fool. What one might object

> to is the notion that all that modernity has done is *positive*, or that

> it has been mostly positive.Yes, all men and women now have their

> " rights, " or so they say, but at the cost of their place in the cosmos.

> I'm not sure it was worth it, to repeat.

>

> Regards,

>

> Dan

>

>

[Guest guest]

fa,

I stand corrected. You are far better versed on this side of Jung. Can't think

of any word in German that would be more apt.

I knew Jung wasn't anti-Semitic, but I thought I had read about early sympathy

for National Socialism in terms of getting men to work and starting the

economy in Germany. Glad to hear, how foresighted he turned out to be in

reality.

Toni

fa wrote:

> Can't stay out of this one - sorry!>

>

> Dan, you are right on the money here. Jung was accused of " praising Hitler "

> in the interview on Radio Berlin in 1933 (in C. G. Jung Speaking, pp 73-79).

> The reason is because he quoted Hitler, and the quote is always taken out of

> context without the (albeit slightly veiled) words of caution which

> immediately followed. He also criticised Freud and Adler in this interview -

> so people have blown it up out of all proportion and claimed that he was

> pro-Nazi and anti-Jewish. DUH! What he actually said about Hitler was this:

>

> Jung was sufficiently alarmed about the Nazi threat to move his wife and

> children deep into the countryside during the war, although he himself

> remained where he was and fulfilled his professional obligations.

>

> fa

>

[Guest guest]

I love this entire paper and feel that the passage quoted *is*, in

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

felt that it wasn't?

Of course, I don't see Bush, Gore, or our own (G-d help us!) Tony Blair as

being like Hitler. ( Portillo, possibly, given the chance.) But,

certainly with Blair, I see dangerous megalomaniac tendencies. Did you know

that he is already thinking in terms of his place in the history books in 50

years time? And he is moving more and more towards State-controlled life.

They are currently considering passing a bill giving MI5 unlimited access to

every telephone call we make and every e-mail we send! These kind of things

are being done in the name of the nanny state which looks after us, as we

are not adult enough to do it for ourselves.

Thank you for the quote, (even if your politics *do* leave something

to be desired, IMO!!!)

fa