Guest guest Posted December 31, 2000 Report Share Posted December 31, 2000 Have a happy forever, one and all. Lots of love, m Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2001 Report Share Posted January 1, 2001 Cov - u missed a factor! the astrological chart wh accounts for the way we each are likely to process experience....even cloning [id twins for ex] may share that factor but WHAT they experience will differ, so the outcome will be unique. as students of jung we presumably agree w/his statement 'in the end all is psychic reality' i.e. the unus mundus. on the other hand, if yr view is correct, the grand experiment w/our planet earth may be doomed n wiped away as a failure. However, we are sposed to be on the upswing fr the Kali Yuga n eventually a totally mechanical, techy Aquar age will have its built-in obsolescence, nature will balance things out. the test is to the ultimate hybris of humankind hence the wisdom of Leo being the opp sign to Aquar. n balanced by Taurus/Scorpio [4 beasts of ezek, revelations, 4 fixed signs of zodiac.] remember, we cannot kill an archetype. Icarus fell. Happy New Year, Cov! which rhymes w/love....... Alice O. Howell Rosecroft 72 Beartown Mt. Road Monterey, MA 01245 USA Tel: Fax: " Look for the sacred in the commonplace! " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2001 Report Share Posted January 1, 2001 People on TV are still talking about gadgets being the big deals of the future. You know: how the lasers in their front door panels will be able to read their eyes and open the door and stuff (until pranksters at Halloween substitute surgical lasers). This is old news and really more part of the industrial age than the new age. Most people on TV can’t think very far ahead because they don’t have much imagination, or more accurately, they are worried about TV ratings and can’t talk about anything intelligent. The genome is the big deal. Along with aborting disease, we will be able to stop death: apoptosis (or however the hell you spell the word for programmed cellular death). In a PC, we will be able to program the next 100 years of our life so that we can be a girl, if we were a boy, or a Chimp with a 200 IQ, or a fish with a human brain, or a great athlete, or a tree with a human brain. We can program the type of personality we want, the moral values, or lack thereof, that we prefer, and change everything if we get bored or change our minds. Everything we think and do; every way we appear and function is programmed in the sequence of our simple base pairs making up our DNA. Each attribute or archetype permits a range of expression caused by the environment, but only a limited range. Our gene(s) for height, for example, may allow one to be 5’10” to 6’3” depending on the person’s nutritional intake; but s/he can’ t be 6’4” unless s/he reprograms a gene or two. One person might be an aggressive salesman or a killer of men in a robbery depending on circumstances of his environment, but he won’t kill a girlfriend or a child unless he has genes reprogrammed. Another person might have the genetic predisposition to be able to kill women and kids in the right environment, so someone might want to reprogram his genes so that he will no longer have that capability, regardless of any environmental influences. I’ve said it before that I am as sure as I am of anything that a person’s archetypal substructure is a function of his genes. Jung said it too, if you read him with the understanding that he didn’t know much about heredity, since and Crick were just coming into the collective consciousness around the time that Jung died. Therefore, just as we are genetically 99.9% the same as our neighbor, we are 0.1% different. It is in that 0.1% that we get the kids that are capable of killing their families and the like. Not everybody is capable of it, regardless or environmental influences. As genes go, so does one’s collective unconscious constellation. Jung said everybody had pretty much the same collective unconscious as everybody else, and once in a while he slipped and used the word “identical”; but most of the time he said “nearly” the same. He was smart enough to be talking about the human genome in advance, but fuzzy on it. Obviously not every one of you will agree with me on this stuff, but some of us will be alive long enough to see if what I think is obvious is correct or not. Happy New Age! Cov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2001 Report Share Posted January 2, 2001 Cov, If I programed the next hundred years , can I keep all the stuff I have learned? Damn, I always wanted to be taller than 5'2 " , can I pick 5'7'' ? I bet if I try,I could act like that .1%, or does that just mean I have been going around in disguise all these years? I think Jung's fuzziness is what Dan calls his esoteric teachings. If you knew how to decode him, he wouldn't be fuzzy...he is obviously doing it on purpose. (Dan, forgive me...just couldn't resist pulling your leg too) Toni Covert wrote: > > > The genome is the big deal. Along with aborting disease, we will be able to > stop death: apoptosis (or however the hell you spell the word for programmed > cellular death). In a PC, we will be able to program the next 100 years of > our life so that we can be a girl, if we were a boy, or a Chimp with a 200 > IQ, or a fish with a human brain, or a great athlete, or a tree with a human > brain. We can program the type of personality we want, the moral values, or > lack thereof, that we prefer, and change everything if we get bored or > change our minds. > > Everything we think and do; every way we appear and function is programmed > in the sequence of our simple base pairs making up our DNA. Each attribute > or archetype permits a range of expression caused by the environment, but > only a limited range. Our gene(s) for height, for example, may allow one to > be 5’10” to 6’3” depending on the person’s nutritional intake; but s/he can’ > t be 6’4” unless s/he reprograms a gene or two. > > One person might be an aggressive salesman or a killer of men in a robbery > depending on circumstances of his environment, but he won’t kill a > girlfriend or a child unless he has genes reprogrammed. > > > Therefore, just as we are genetically 99.9% the same as our neighbor, we are > 0.1% different. It is in that 0.1% that we get the kids that are capable of > killing their families and the like. > the same. He was smart enough to be talking about the human genome in > advance, but fuzzy on it. > Obviously not every one of you will agree with me on this stuff, but some of > us will be alive long enough to see if what I think is obvious is correct or > not. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2001 Report Share Posted January 3, 2001 You could have picked up 2 inches from eating better, I bet. I agree that Jung talked in metaphors, and therefore in a " fuzzy " manner on purpose, but there is no way that he could have understood DNA like we do today. I'm talking fuzzily on purpose, too: kind of in a central tendency cloud. There are all kinds of exceptions to what I said. It would take a lifetime of research and a tome left behind to try not to be fuzzy - and one could never succeed. In war and under traumatic conditions, many of us could kill little kids. I am talking about operating under " normal " prevailing conditions. The fact that most people don't kill little kids proves that they do not under " normal " circumstances. I don't know what percentage does exactly, but it is pretty small. I'm just betting that the biggest frontiers are inside, not in gadgets or in the sky. At least for the next few hundred years. Re: New Year >Cov, If I programed the next hundred years , can I keep all the stuff I have >learned? Damn, I always wanted to be taller than 5'2 " , can I pick 5'7'' ? >I bet if I try,I could act like that .1%, or does that just mean I have been >going around in disguise all these years? >I think Jung's fuzziness is what Dan calls his esoteric teachings. If you knew >how to decode him, he wouldn't be fuzzy...he is obviously doing it on purpose. >(Dan, forgive me...just couldn't resist pulling your leg too) >Toni > >Covert wrote: > >> >> >> The genome is the big deal. Along with aborting disease, we will be able to >> stop death: apoptosis (or however the hell you spell the word for programmed >> cellular death). In a PC, we will be able to program the next 100 years of >> our life so that we can be a girl, if we were a boy, or a Chimp with a 200 >> IQ, or a fish with a human brain, or a great athlete, or a tree with a human >> brain. We can program the type of personality we want, the moral values, or >> lack thereof, that we prefer, and change everything if we get bored or >> change our minds. >> >> Everything we think and do; every way we appear and function is programmed >> in the sequence of our simple base pairs making up our DNA. Each attribute >> or archetype permits a range of expression caused by the environment, but >> only a limited range. Our gene(s) for height, for example, may allow one to >> be 5’10” to 6’3” depending on the person’s nutritional intake; but s/he can’ >> t be 6’4” unless s/he reprograms a gene or two. >> >> One person might be an aggressive salesman or a killer of men in a robbery >> depending on circumstances of his environment, but he won’t kill a >> girlfriend or a child unless he has genes reprogrammed. >> >> >> Therefore, just as we are genetically 99.9% the same as our neighbor, we are >> 0.1% different. It is in that 0.1% that we get the kids that are capable of >> killing their families and the like. >> the same. He was smart enough to be talking about the human genome in >> advance, but fuzzy on it. >> Obviously not every one of you will agree with me on this stuff, but some of >> us will be alive long enough to see if what I think is obvious is correct or >> not. >> >> > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2001 Report Share Posted January 3, 2001 Cov, I don't know whom you were answering in that bit about being able to kill kids. it is my contention that all of us are capable of the worst human traits and actions as well as the best. I fully agree. When the stress gets bad enough ,we do what " ordinarily " would horrify us. If we all kept that in mind, there would be very little judgmentalism in this world.Whether or not we succumb depends on our breaking point, our previous history as well as (dare I say it?) the grace of God. Be nice to live 200 years hence. I do think the frontier is in our heads. How will our delaying emotions handle that? Toni Covert wrote: > > > I agree that Jung talked in metaphors, and therefore in a " fuzzy " manner on > purpose, but there is no way that he could have understood DNA like we do > today. > > > > In war and under traumatic conditions, many of us could kill little kids. I > am talking about operating under " normal " prevailing conditions. The fact > that most people don't kill little kids proves that they do not under > " normal " circumstances. I don't know what percentage does exactly, but it is > pretty small. > > I'm just betting that the biggest frontiers are inside, not in gadgets or in > the sky. At least for the next few hundred years. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2001 Report Share Posted January 4, 2001 " He had come home from the war and seen in his own eyes the disturbed empty reaches he'd seen in the eyes of other soldiers he'd known. They did not so much seem to stare right through things as to stare past the present state of the world into a world that was permanently in the distance for them and at the same time more immediate than the present. Kabuo remembered much in this manner. Under the surface of his daily life was a life he lived as if underwater. Kabuo remembered how under the helmet of the soldier on the wooded hillside, underneath the steady droning of the bees, it had turned out to be a very young boy he had shot directly through the groin. When Kabuo approached from one side the boy had stared up at him and spoke through clenched teeth in tremulous German. Then the boy panicked and moved his hand toward his gun, and Kabuo shot him one more time in the heart at point-blank range. Yet still the boy refused to die and lay on his back between two trees while Kabuo stood five feet away, frozen, his rifle shouldered still. The boy held his chest in both of his hands and exerted himself to take a breath, and sucked in the hot afternoon air. Then he spoke again, between his teeth, and it was clear to Kabuo that he was begging, pleading, that he wanted the American who had killed him to save him- he had no choice but to ask him for this, nobody else was present. All of it was too much, and when the boy stopped talking his chest twitched a half-dozen times and blood ran from his mounth and down his cheeks. Then Kabuo went forward with his rifle and squatted beside the German boy, on his right, and the boy put his hand on Kabuo's boot and shut his eyes and gave out. The tension stayed in his mouth for a while, and Kabuo watched until it faded. " " Snow Falling on Cedars " , by Guterson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.