Re: Motherating, Suffering &etc.

[Guest guest]

Dear Marte,

Since when? Call it 1500 or so. Yes, the worst disaster. Can you think of

another that has done more damage?

Re: caveman remark. If it sounds like me, it is because I have been heavily

influenced by CGJ for twenty five years and more.

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

primitive caveman suggestibility, the suspicions and vicious traits of the

savage. "

CGJ, " Diagnosing the Dictators " in _C.G. Jung Speaking_, p. 134.

Can't want it plainer than that, eh? I fear that Dr. Jung could not get a

teaching appointment in any right thinking American university these days.

Unless of course he wrote esoterically, like an alchemist or somethin'.

petitio principi = " begging the question, " i.e., assuming from the outset what

you purport to prove.

Best,

Dan

---- marte wrote:

> First, some comments on/response to Dan's and Alice's exchange

>

> Dan:

> > > Hmmm... it is news to me that Jung is about " solving the

> suffering of

> > > so many in the world today. " He was less grandiose than that , it

> > > seems to me. The world does not admit of saving, and Jung knew

> that.

> > > It's enough, and more than enough, to try to save oneself - and

> in

> > > that, one might improve the world by a tiny fraction.

>

> Alice:

> > > " I regard it as the noblest task of psychotherapy in our times to

> > > untiringly serve the growth of the individual. " CGJung

> > >

> > > Dan, by extension that logically certainly includes the majority

> of

> > > individuals living today who are suffering.

>

> Dan:

> > So he was serving the growth of the individual - en masse? I not

> sure

> > one can do that.

>

> (marte: I don't think so either, but I also don't think this was what

> Alice meant by her comment....)

>

> Dan:

> > It might be that certain political regimes are more conducive to

> > individuation than others - Jung praised certain regimes, and

> blamed

> > others - but Jung was not himself a very political man.

>

> (marte: AY-men!, and this is part of a hang-up that the ?political?

> side of marte has had for a long time vis-a-vis allegiance (sic!) to

> Jung and deep appreciation of much of his work. [back in LA, almost

> any time Kirsch gave a public talk that allowed for audience

> questions, someone would ask about Jung vs. (?) Anti-Semitism and the

> Nazis. Almost as often as Jung vs. (?) Freud. I'm afraid I'm

> getting " anwearied " of argument(s) per se ... for whatever that is or

> isn't worth, here...).

>

> Dan:

> And in fact I'm

> > not sure it is true that Jung thought that the " majority of

> > individuals " could become, well, individuals in (his) narrow sense

> > (nice petitio principi there, btw - you almost slipped it by me :-

> ).

>

> (marte: I'm inclined towards the opinion you suggest as to what Jung

> did or didn't think about " the majority of individuals " becoming --

> what? " Individuated " ? As to " petitio principi " , I hope you'll

> translate this one some time [ " See Below " ?])

>

> Dan:

> > Jung says that few have virtues, but we all have the primitive

> caveman

> > instincts.

>

> (marte: Dan, this statement of yours interests me considerably. The

> language style [so to speak] sounds to me more like Dan than Jung.

> Can you give me some textual references to CW?).

>

> Dan:

> I'm also not sure that individuation necessarily = relief

> > from suffering. I get the impression from Jung that suffering is

> > necessary to individuation, and that those who are " fat and happy, "

> as

> > the saying goes, are less likely than others to become individuals.

>

> (marte: I don't know whether this is a Pandora's Box theme, but it

> seems to me -- for starters, anyway -- that " suffering " is, itself a

> more ... how to put this? From the gut than the head? kind of word,

> so I think I won't try to say more about that till I figure out

> whether/when/how or how much to respond specifically to the posts

> explictly addressing " suffering " itself. Except to say that it

> certainly seemed to me, when reading MDR that Jung was -- to

> paraphrease an old church phrase " not unacquainted with suffering "

> [?! :-)]

>

> Alice:

> > " I regard it as the noblest task of psychotherapy in our times to

> > untiringly serve the growth of the individual. "

>

> Dan:

> > I would attempt a slow reading of this sentence if I had time.

> Maybe

> > some others are interested. I will start by noting " in our times. "

> Why

> > " in our times " in particular? Possibly as a counter to the

> collectivist,

> > " mass-man " tendencies of the horrible twentieth century.

>

> marte:

> I certainly am (a) " interested " , and particularly in the possibility

> of any comments resulting from " a slow reading " .

>

> " Why 'in our times' in particular? " indeed. [Except, maybe, that

> we're all of us however much or little sentient we may or may not be,

> in these " our times " ?] Case in point (sort of): was the horrible

> twentieth century assuredly more horrible than any other? Or just

> _differently_ horrible?? [:-( :-)]

>

> Alice:

>

> > > Why on earth do u suppose Jung worked so hard for over 70 years -

> just

> > > to earn a living?

> > >

>

> (marte: I have to assume this is a rhetorical (partly goad? [:-)])

> question on Alice's part, seeing Jung was obviously under no

> duress ... as to basic dollars-and-cents stuff ... to " make a

> living " ).

>

> Dan:

> > I think it was because he was a philosopher, and philosophers are

> > motivated by the desire to know, by zetetic zeal. Jung was

> fortunate in

> > that he was able to make a good living, but that was not his

> motivation.

>

> (marte: " d'acord " . [Meiner Meinung nach, to shift languages for my

> throw-away remarks :-)])

>

>

> Dan:

> > As an undergraduate I had a teacher who was a rather well known

> > psychologist. I went to her, told her I wanted to be a

> psychologist, and

> > asked her for a reference to a particular grad. school (where she

> had

> > some " pull " ). She asked me why I wanted to become a psychologist. I

> gave

> > her some lame answer, I don't remember what, but when I finished

> she

> > paused a moment... and then said, " Well at least you didn't tell me

> you

> > want to 'help people'. " Jung helped people, but I don't think that

> what

> > his primary motivation. God save us from the savers, from the

> determined

> > " helpers. " They so often turn out to be of a tyrannical bent. After

> all,

> > they only have our best interests at heart.

>

> (marte: I'm with both you and that years' back teacher on this one;

> noting also -- if I may? -- the " typically Dan " end statement! :-) ).

>

> Alice:

> > > He stated that so many people are suffering bec they see no

> meaning to

> > > their lives

>

> Dan:

> > True - and that loss of meaning did and does have a political

> cause,

> > admittedly. It's cause was the so called " Enlightenment, " the worst

> > disaster ever to befall mankind.....

>

> (marte:

> Ah, Dan back on the Dan soapbox again! :-) :-) I'm, alas, a

> little " running out of steam here " (despite my implied yearning for

> discussions resulting -- contrary to much of my anti-Internet biases

> [curmudgeonisms?] -- from some " slow readings " .

>

> Tant meme (she says, lapsing into a different tongue again [saves

> time over " my native tongue " when I'm tiring] -- " the

> socalled 'Enlightenment': " the worst disaster ever to befall

> mankind " ??!! C'mon, Dan!

> :-) :-)

>

> [Translation: " Ever " ? Since, er um, when???? :-)])

>

> So that's my say for the moment. Looking forward to responding to

> the " suffering " thread some subsequent time.

>

> Thanks, all for these many most recent good " meaty " posts.

>

> love and greetings to all,

>

> marte

>

> P.S. Just saw that I didn't footnote my " see below " remark. Will

> save that for some other time; this is already too long, methinks!

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Greg,

If you haven't understood, and if you wish to exclude me from " those

who feel as you do " , that is fine. I have excluded myself. I find the

hysterical laundry list abhorrent, as I find too much animus in

anything. By saying this, if you wish to put me on the other side,

that is fine, also. I see the laundry list as talking points. I don't

have a laundry list against your side. Longevity makes me cringe at

bad behaviour coming from any point of view. My first vote was for

Adlai son and am proud to have voted for Eugene McCarthy. I am

a registered Democrat. Maybe I have witnessed honourable behaviour in

politics, and don't remember any of present day ugliness. Except

Chicago/ Selma/ Dallas/ Memphis. These were uniting events. No sides.

I cried when

Nixon won and responded with 'dropping out'. That's when gardening

took

off as a favorite hobby. All of the TV shows in the 70s had

houseplants galore on the

sets. Saving the world in your own little corner. Not too different

from 1x1x1. This is the

milieu I come from. Having paid dues, if my opinion is different,

then it is not from some psychological defiency but on reasoned

observations as I have aged. It is what I have learned to be a good

thing. A measured thing.

I'm not interested in continuing the dialogue, because there is no

dialogue with intransient positions. And besides I can't take the

heat. I don't like being at odds.

I said there was hope in the Jung quote because we are made aware of

the opposites of power and love, so know they have to be integrated.

Third chakra and fourth chakra.

Maybe I'm longing for that fifth chakra of the throat for beautiful

words, and beautiful expressed sentiment. Since this makes for a big

shadow ther is still lots of work to do.

Maybe some good has come from this discussion. I hope so.

betty

>

[Guest guest]

Betty, all,

The affect attached to one's political opinions is very telling. So if

somebody has a strong emotional response in the positive or negative to

a political figure, to be self-critical about this is to do the work of

understanding what else is going on.

A second party does or does not possess the fine data that would allow

them to be cogently critical of this other person. If they don't have

enough information not only is their response nothing much more than a

guess, but, as we all know, it's likely to be infected with affect and

may constellate complexes (in Jung's terms,) and lead all parties into a

'hard time.'

Arguing that an extreme is implmented because somebody either doesn't

like a President, or, doesn't agree with some subjective idea about

toleration of opposing viewpoints, doesn't hop and skip to anything like

a participation mystique unless one provides evidence that it is likely so.

But, the liberal shadow is potent, as is any shadow. At the same time,

this shadow is an individual thing. " Liberal " and " conservative " are

blunt terms which can prevent the inquiry into what somebody's actual

value system is. Load a bunch of affect onto it and not only do all

sorts of subjects become hard to talk about, the reason for all the

intense feeling becomes especially hard to investigate.

Also, all sorts of projections get dumped on political figures simply

because they exist as collective figurations too. They're people at the

beginning and the end of the day.

This is different than smartly evaluating the results driven by powerful

people implementing powerful plans and policies.

I don't hate Bush. I don't him. I probably wouldn't like him if I got to

know him a bit more and a bit more personally, but this is just to say

personalities of his type aren't my cup of tea. I'm not likely to like a

black and white 'type' be they of the right or left.

Yet, the psychology of a type of any type is, to me, very interesting.

The analytic psychology isn't my favored mode of folk psychology and I

don't live in a Jungian world full of archetypal psyches. Still, I

recognize my amateur 'diagnostic' psychologization of Bush, for example,

is going to be fairly harsh even in informal 'Jungian' terms.

Okay, I feel Bush's policies are very harmful and immoral. As

conservatives goes he also seems unprincipled, so, I wonder what kind of

reports of opinions strike somebody else as being so disagreeable?

regards,

[Guest guest]

Greg, all,

Just wanted to say that the picture you pained is colored with all sorts

of rhetorical flourishes that seem very hot, rather than cool and

objective.

I doubt Bush is being abandoned by the 'evangelicals' in great numbers.

If they like him and he's a big sinner, or, at least has trashed any

number of vaunted commandments, this can't be about evangelism or

Christianity in any idealized sense of either term. I don;t see any

evidence of relations with other countries being even near a breaking point.

We'll likely survive Bush and his reign of error and mendacity and

death-making.

Actually, the Republican Party seems to be headed off a cliff unless

they can galvanize a new majority around some uber-hawk and new

crusading savior!

What I wonder about is how Bush psychologically protects himself right

now from the heavy hit he will take in the history books.

regards,

[Guest guest]

>> Betty, all,> > The affect attached to one's political opinions is very telling. So if > somebody has a strong emotional response in the positive or negative to > a political figure, to be self-critical about this is to do the work of > understanding what else is going on.> > A second party does or does not possess the fine data that would allow > them to be cogently critical of this other person. If they don't have > enough information not only is their response nothing much more than a > guess, but, as we all know, it's likely to be infected with affect and > may constellate complexes (in Jung's terms,) and lead all parties into a > 'hard time.'> > Arguing that an extreme is implmented because somebody either doesn't > like a President, or, doesn't agree with some subjective idea about > toleration of opposing viewpoints, doesn't hop and skip to anything like > a participation mystique unless one provides evidence that it is likely so.>

Well lets say I used participation mystique as a metaphor for communal movement oneness and joy, which this driven opposition has grouped themselves in. The psychological insight that their good intentions can constellate harmful complexes on the world stage as well is helpful to this discussion.

> But, the liberal shadow is potent, as is any shadow. At the same time, > this shadow is an individual thing. "Liberal" and "conservative" are > blunt terms which can prevent the inquiry into what somebody's actual > value system is. Load a bunch of affect onto it and not only do all > sorts of subjects become hard to talk about, the reason for all the > intense feeling becomes especially hard to investigate.

This is what I have sensed and did not articulate well.

> > Also, all sorts of projections get dumped on political figures simply > because they exist as collective figurations too. They're people at the > beginning and the end of the day.> > This is different than smartly evaluating the results driven by powerful > people implementing powerful plans and policies.

And the evaluation of these policies can be expressed in language that shows a psychological maturity. Not in the gotcha mode .> > I don't hate Bush. I don't him. I probably wouldn't like him if I got to > know him a bit more and a bit more personally, but this is just to say > personalities of his type aren't my cup of tea. I'm not likely to like a > black and white 'type' be they of the right or left.> > Yet, the psychology of a type of any type is, to me, very interesting. > The analytic psychology isn't my favored mode of folk psychology and I > don't live in a Jungian world full of archetypal psyches. Still, I > recognize my amateur 'diagnostic' psychologization of Bush, for example, > is going to be fairly harsh even in informal 'Jungian' terms.

> Okay, I feel Bush's policies are very harmful and immoral. As > conservatives goes he also seems unprincipled, so, I wonder what kind of > reports of opinions strike somebody else as being so disagreeable?

It is odd so few will take on this. I would like to see the language in which they present their opinions. For actually the language is the issue here.> > regards,> > >betty

[Guest guest]

Jung says: >>"Not everyone has virtues, but everybody has the low animal instincts, the basic primitive caveman suggestibility, the suspicions and vicious traits of the savage."<< --I'd say everyone displays virtue toward SOME while being suspicious and vicious toward OTHERS. What seems to be pretty universal is the tendency to see oneself and one's tribe as virtuous while demonizing others. The major achievement is withdrawing shadow projection and seeing, as Milgram and others have noted, that good people can do evil things and vice versa, that it's a systemic problem, not as individual as we assume.

Don't pick lemons.

See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.

[Guest guest]

Dear Greg,

Greg wrote:

Dan wrote:

>"Not everyone has virtues, but everybody has the low animal

instincts, the basic primitive caveman suggestibility, the suspicions

and vicious traits of the savage."

CGJ, "Diagnosing the Dictators" in _C.G. Jung Speaking_, p. 134.

Can't want it plainer than that, eh? I fear that Dr. Jung could not get

a teaching appointment in any right thinking American university these

days. Unless of course he wrote esoterically, like an alchemist or

somethin'.

Dan,

You have an irritating habit (oft repeated) of finding the most obscure

Jung quotes to suggest a point of view completely out of keeping with

the thrust of Jung's works. He was, afterall, a man who wrote an

enormous volume of work, much of which still remains unpublished. Sonu

Shamdasani is now working to correct the latter. My question to you Dan

is why you persist in quoting Jung (often completely out of context) to

make clever but off target debating points, supporting ideas that Jung

would surely have disowned or disavowed as representative of the

philosophy and psychology to which he devoted a lifetime of intellect

and energy. Yet you often quote Jung in the same fashion that

fundamentalist preachers quote the Bible, and in doing so throw the

baby out with the bath water. I'm curious to understand your motivation

for doing so. It is unclear whether you are genuinely mistaken or

simply an iconoclast spoiling for a debate/fight.

If I'm mistaken, I'm genuinely mistaken, Greg.

Jung's pronouncements on things political are remarkably consistent

throughout the CW. Regardless of metaphysical statements (Jung is

careful about this), Jung knows that , in strictly human, earthly

terms, human beings are not created equal in any meaningful sense. Not

everyone has virtues (some do) but everyone has the caveman. Jung's

political philosophy in nuce. I won't say that Jung is just like

Nietzsche, but his thought is much, MUCH closer to Nietzsche's than to,

say, that of Jesus Christ.

Those Jung haters who complain that Jung is not a feminist, is not an

egalitarian, is not a modern, is a critic, if not an enemy, of the

Enlightenment, is an underminer of modern science - they're all RIGHT!

The only thing about which they are mistaken is thinking there is

something *wrong* with that.

The quote I posted is not obscure. It's part of the collected works,

easily available. It happens to be from my favorite volume - it may not

be your favorite.

Look: all good, kind, compassion-mongering egalitarian one-worldy folks

should recoil from Jung like a vampire from the sunlight. The fact that

they don't - that they even think he is one of their own - indicates

that they don't understand him. It is my self-appointed task, in my

small way, to try to correct that - if only to keep us all from

expiring from sugar diabetes.

Best regards,

Dan

In any case, the above quote, when analyzed or re-contexted, is not

that difficult to understand. The article from which you quoted

appeared in (I believe) Harper's Magazine in the late 30s when people

were trying to understand the Hitler phenomenon that had been unleashed

in Germany... probably somewhat like our old European friends trying to

understand the kind of mass psychosis that has gripped the Americans in

the early 2000s! Jung, who had been invited to Yale for the Terry

Lectures (1938) and a year after receiving his honorary degree from

Harvard, was interviewed about Hitler's psychology. He is likely making

a point here about the variability of human nature, ranging from the

most primitive extreme (and here the suggestability that operates in

the Collective - something all to familiar in our own day and the kind

of thinking that got us the leadership we're now stuck with).

But let's not forget that Jung also spent much of his life studying how

Man connects with his better nature, his Godliness (not to be confused

with "God-almightyness" , which he coined the Self. We have both

extremes within us....as well as the ability/privilege to choose

between the two consciously. And while Jung would certainly acknowledge

Man's primitive nature, he certainly did not celebrate it as the

normative goal of human existence, as your comment would seem to

suggest. Such an interpretation of Jung's words doesn't require much of

an "esoteric" leap for most of us. But perhaps you are making a more

subtle point here. And what you term "right" thinking is (I hope) a

play on words. There are enough "right" thinking universities that

could be better labeled "wrong" thinking these days. And their

graduates are successfully finding their way into positions of

authority and influence within the Bush administation. One example is

the young woman who will be taking

the Fifth Amendment in her testimony before Congress today in the

scandal now unfolding before our eyes.

Greg

_______________________________________________

Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com

The most personalized portal on the Web!

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

Calhoun wrote:

***

One sure miracle is how Jung's thoughts happen to match those of Dan.

To the degree that mine match his, it is because he has taught me. No

miracle involved

To me it seems Dan selects the Jung that corresponds with his political

views...as almost all of us do. Same evidence...different

interpretation.

However, my opinion is that Dan elevates Jung's old fashion elitism to a

guiding principle for Jung, whereas others see those conservative

assumptions of Jung in the greater light of his psychology, a psychology

that is about the individual psychological task in the main.

The two are utterly congruent.

Thus Jung was not a social darwinist,

True. Jung was an aristocrat, the opposite of a social Darwinist.

Darwin - now *there* was a social Darwinist.

Straussian

Also true, although they have more in common than one might think at

first glance.

or in much alignment with

Plato's political notions,

Wrong. Jung is Plato II - the next generation.

even if Dan at times argues incoherently in

this direction. Jung may have thought the medieval era was nicely in

harmony collectively, but, Jung understood that the collective impress

is

dynamic and progressive in the sense that the more we enlighten the

corner

of our individual psyches, the more, overall, the worldly collective

will

know about the psyche.

The "worldly collective" is, I would argue, even less knowledgable

about the psyche now than it was 700 years ago (when the psych was "out

there" for all to see, even if not called that).

However, the reaction against self-knowledge is

also to be anticipated. imo

That Dan trots out the same dashed arguments for a decade is a credit to

his fortitude.

The truth hasn't changed - why should I? ;-).

Good to hear from you again.

Best,

dan

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NhSQARojp0

regards,