an unresolvable conflict

[Guest guest]

Oh, you guys! This is so much fun! I've just finished writing synopses for

twelve archetypes that arise during the hero/ine's journey (from the Innocent

through the Ruler to the Wise Fool, etc.) and the thoughts and actions they

bring about and you're bringing so many examples of them right up where I can

see them! Thanks!

Namasté

Sam

[Guest guest]

Toni, Ghazaleh, all,

>T:I realize that other spiritual traditions do not agree, but as

>long as one is on this earth, it seems to me, that consciousness

>demands the ego. The Self rests in the unconscious and I cannot be

>aware of it at all if I have no ego/consciousness.

Alas, this is hardly an argument, (given that it is tautological,)

that subverts the non-dual tradition, a tradition several thousands

of years old, and, at the least, intersubjectively verified by

various masters over those many years. It's most modern proponent is

Ken Wilber.

It has elaborated in various forms and traditions a detailed

psychology, much of which *cannot* be matched with Jung's discoveries

or the discoveries of all who *insist* on dualistic descriptions of

what for non-dual scientists of psyche is at the end of their own

insearch into transcendent consciousness.

In other words, this is a rock bottom epistemic place where persons

of different persuasions would be best to agree to disagree on ontic

reality.

***

This faultline is, obviously, going to be around long after our own

individual experiments are over. But, Jung, poached eggs, and 'There

isn't duality, to my way of thinking, because the ego has given up

the fight and is willing to be subservient to the Self. " isn't going

to resolve the problem.

(In fact, as for Jung, in Psychology East and West, he, incredibly,

by the end, creates the impression that he knows more about Buddhism

than Buddha did!)

***

Toni, I understand you've couched this in terms of your own

experience and generously acknowledged others may both have different

experience, or, different ways of understanding.

But, even so, it would then seem unnecessary to yet again remind

persons who don't see it your way that " according to Jung, one cannot

annihilate the ego " .

We do not know whether Jung is right or wrong on this matter. It's as

simple as that; albeit no doubt this is uncertain, may even be

troubling.

regards,

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

Right you are. we cannot know whether Jung was/is wrong or right. However I may

use my reason to find the logic in his explanation and to use it until it is no

longer useful.

You see, I do think Jung was often often correct. I said " according to Jung "

which is a true statement. He did think that. I was never aware that I was

making a philosophical declaration discovery a psychological one. I said

" according to Jung " not me.

You see, , this is not a burning question for me, and I am not looking

for a rational explanation which disagrees with Jung's since at the moment I am

happy to accept his conclusion. I have no intention of spending my life

agonizing about ultimate anything. I came to my way, and unless it fails me, I

am committed. I too took time to think my own thoughts, to explore other

avenues, and I decided on this. All that constant re-examining, over and over

again accomplishes is thrashing around instead of commitment to one's own truth.

I experience reality in my own way.

Just as we seem stuck in our way, we will go on disagreeing. We are not,

going to resolve the problem. Not in this lifetime anyway.Further my

conclusions do not threaten your beliefs or shouldn't. Unanimity is very far of

if ever.

In other words, this is a rock bottom epistemic place where persons

of different persuasions would be best to agree to disagree on ontic

reality.

I think you are overly optimistic, or perhaps unaware of how far human knowledge

can go .Yes, I am sorry, but we always have new members, and this is an

important point. So I quote Jung too often....by the way what did you say the

name of this list is?

Toni

an unresolvable conflict

Toni, Ghazaleh, all,

>T:I realize that other spiritual traditions do not agree, but as

>long as one is on this earth, it seems to me, that consciousness

>demands the ego. The Self rests in the unconscious and I cannot be

>aware of it at all if I have no ego/consciousness.

Alas, this is hardly an argument, (given that it is tautological,)

that subverts the non-dual tradition, a tradition several thousands

of years old, and, at the least, intersubjectively verified by

various masters over those many years. It's most modern proponent is

Ken Wilber.

It has elaborated in various forms and traditions a detailed

psychology, much of which *cannot* be matched with Jung's discoveries

or the discoveries of all who *insist* on dualistic descriptions of

what for non-dual scientists of psyche is at the end of their own

insearch into transcendent consciousness.

In other words, this is a rock bottom epistemic place where persons

of different persuasions would be best to agree to disagree on ontic

reality.

***

This faultline is, obviously, going to be around long after our own

individual experiments are over. But, Jung, poached eggs, and 'There

isn't duality, to my way of thinking, because the ego has given up

the fight and is willing to be subservient to the Self. " isn't going

to resolve the problem.

(In fact, as for Jung, in Psychology East and West, he, incredibly,

by the end, creates the impression that he knows more about Buddhism

than Buddha did!)

***

Toni, I understand you've couched this in terms of your own

experience and generously acknowledged others may both have different

experience, or, different ways of understanding.

But, even so, it would then seem unnecessary to yet again remind

persons who don't see it your way that " according to Jung, one cannot

annihilate the ego " .

We do not know whether Jung is right or wrong on this matter. It's as

simple as that; albeit no doubt this is uncertain, may even be

troubling.

regards,

[Guest guest]

Toni,

Why do you reply in these terms?

>T:you are overly optimistic, or perhaps unaware of how far human

>knowledge can go "

Optimistic about what?! (I am an optimist.) But, why the tag? Jung

for me, is one of the greatest psychologists in a large group of

great psychological thinkers. My constraints are softer and less in

the thrall of Jung. You would do well to suspect that I am aware of

how far human knowledge can go, and this would extend right into the

non-dual. (Something about my experience could be added here too.)

***

>T:and this is an important point.

Or, maybe not, " this is not a burning question for me "

***

" new members " ? But you weren't replying to a new member, were you?

Toni, I don't know if Ghazaleh felt patronized. I surely do, once

again...

I would maintain, rightly or wrongly, the paradoxes are, indeed,

paradoxical. Not even Jung could answer this problem with his

hypotheticals and his descriptions, both fit into: 'there are no

'absolutes'.

Why there is an absolutist cast to much of the point-making on the

two Jung lists, in light of this, *is beyond me*. Somebody's findings

are different, what's the big deal?

(btw, I feel I know what the big deal is!)

***

I would urge new members to work these things out for themselves, put

Jung to the test as it were. After all, the Buddha said, " don't take

my word for it " .

T:by the way what did you say the name of this list is?

Yes, Jung-Fire. Count me in.

regards,