Re: Hifi and falsifiability.

[Guest guest]

Dan, all,

The concept of falsifiability, per Popper, is different than falsifying a

claim or hypothesis. However, the relationship between the two is as you

state it to be.

***

You could no more define a 'whole,' worthy of the implication of its being

understood 'wholly' than any philosopher who has ever lived. I would

suppose a complete understanding of the whole would not issue anything but

the whole understanding and seems likely to be ineffable or beyond

delivering its parts; hmmm, no not its parts but all of the parts.

To me its a silly red herring.

You want science to be ambitious beyond its methods and useful

assumptions. So, get to work. It's not a job many have ever urged upon it.

An complaint with science is that it is constrained and so leaves out all

the circular irrationalities and magical primitivisms that so grip the

pseudo-scientist.

Really, Dan, whatever.

***

Dan writes:

" They live in a post-enlightenment

world were the scientists are effectively in charge, and they are

savvy enough to know they have to deal.

" I will say that the scientists often seem to be blind-sided, and even

incensed, at the opposition. "

Opposition? I will take this to be the funniest thing I am likely to read

today. Personally, I am often appalled at people's ignorance but it rarely

incenses me. It's much more fascinating to ponder the hold of superstition

and irrationality than it is to get 'haired out' about it.

***

" Experience guides by those who have had the experience - that, per his

" empiricism, " is the only way. "

If this were true about Jung, I'd sit here in shock. I understand you wish

to turn him into a harsh psychological talibani. But, even if this were

the only fundamental practical imperative offered by Jung--and you

wouldn't be able to back it up--then as I have pointed out on previous

occasions, it really opens up the whole game of self-development into the

very new age, self-creation, historicist, artistic, liberal field that you

do not like. This is inevitably the ramification of individuation, since

it's goal is to become who one is really to be.

Jung doesn't point that process singularly in the direction of compliance

and role-taking per some aristocratic chain-of-being. In a nutshell this

means: embrace your fate; reconcile the opposites in the personality; make

the soul work related to the Self; and, dare I say, burst the shackles of

collective enslavement.

Well, you're welcome to follow the quaint romantic Jung by doing almost

nothing that he recommends such a seeker--one molded by Jung's own

journey-- do.

What's curious to me in reviewing 'your case' is that you are not able to

see what the psychological implications per Jung would be for someone like

yourself who has such a death grip on such a tiny repertoire of

'conservative' or 'traditional' ideas. These constitute a world view just

in psychological terms. So, how do you follow Jung and not subject

yourself to the dynamic upwellings of a psyche that wishes for you to be

the Dan who really is fated to be who you really are?

Were you to embrace Jung's psychology sincerely, then wouldn't it be

obvious that the first steps would be in the direction of learning why

your landscape is so barren and cold and glued down and *not open to the

spectral, dynamic, creative, psyche* ...per your vaunted Dr. Jung's

prescription for cure.

Sorry, Dan, it's never occurred to me in 12+ years that you either care

for, or have dealt with, or understood the psychological findings of Dr.

Jung.

regards,

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

>

> Dan, all,

>

(snip)

>

> Really, Dan, whatever.

All right, then, whatever.

>

> ***

>

> Dan writes:

>

> " They live in a post-enlightenment

> world were the scientists are effectively in charge, and they are

> savvy enough to know they have to deal.

>

> " I will say that the scientists often seem to be blind-sided, and even

> incensed, at the opposition. "

>

> Opposition? I will take this to be the funniest thing I am likely to

read

> today. Personally, I am often appalled at people's ignorance but it

rarely

> incenses me. It's much more fascinating to ponder the hold of

superstition

> and irrationality than it is to get 'haired out' about it.

I have in mind primarily political opposition. You know, " how dare

those voters insist on teaching ID in the schools, when we have

already told them it is wrong. " Trust me, I'm a doctor.

>

> ***

>

> " Experience guides by those who have had the experience - that, per his

> " empiricism, " is the only way. "

>

> If this were true about Jung, I'd sit here in shock.

When did Jung stop fooling about with experiments testing falsifiable

hypotheses? Age thirty-five or so?

> I understand you wish

> to turn him into a harsh psychological talibani. But, even if this were

> the only fundamental practical imperative offered by Jung--and you

> wouldn't be able to back it up--then as I have pointed out on previous

> occasions, it really opens up the whole game of self-development

into the

> very new age, self-creation, historicist, artistic, liberal field

that you

> do not like. This is inevitably the ramification of individuation, since

> it's goal is to become who one is really to be.

That certainly does seem often to be its practical ramification,

although I do not believe this is what Jung had in mind. Perhaps he

was imprudent. Perhaps he figured this was inevitable, but a price

worth paying.

>

> Jung doesn't point that process singularly in the direction of

compliance

> and role-taking per some aristocratic chain-of-being.

No, but he certainly does emphasize that. Individuation in its strict

sense, per Jung, is for the few.

> In a nutshell this

> means: embrace your fate; reconcile the opposites in the

personality; make

> the soul work related to the Self; and, dare I say, burst the

shackles of

> collective enslavement.

If you can. Sometimes embracing your fate means accepting those

shackles and reconciling yourself to your own brokenness. Depends on

who you are, what sort of person you are, whether you should go into

analysis, or back to church.

>

> Well, you're welcome to follow the quaint romantic Jung by doing almost

> nothing that he recommends such a seeker--one molded by Jung's own

> journey-- do.

Perhaps I am not such a seeker. Perhaps I do what Jung recommended

that such as I do - go to work, be married, go back to church (well,

maybe two out of three will do).

>

> What's curious to me in reviewing 'your case' is that you are not

able to

> see what the psychological implications per Jung would be for

someone like

> yourself who has such a death grip on such a tiny repertoire of

> 'conservative' or 'traditional' ideas. These constitute a world view

just

> in psychological terms. So, how do you follow Jung and not subject

> yourself to the dynamic upwellings of a psyche that wishes for you to be

> the Dan who really is fated to be who you really are?

I expect that I am living my fate. I don't think Jung counsels

self-destruction. High mountains are not for everyone, and they have

destroyed better men than I. What you have decried as the tiny

repertoire of conservative and traditional ideas (it is of course

anything but tiny) in fact constitutes the " container, " if I may use

the jargon, that keeps most men and women from madness. Those

upwellings of the psyche are nothing to fool around with.

I would be happy to hear fa's opinion on these points, if she is

around.

>

> Were you to embrace Jung's psychology sincerely, then wouldn't it be

> obvious that the first steps would be in the direction of learning why

> your landscape is so barren and cold and glued down and *not open to the

> spectral, dynamic, creative, psyche* ...per your vaunted Dr. Jung's

> prescription for cure.

Yeah, right after I stop beating my wife :-).

I will say that, if I were going the " creative " route, I might be

inclined to take it undiluted - i.e., per Nietzsche.

>

> Sorry, Dan, it's never occurred to me in 12+ years that you either care

> for, or have dealt with, or understood the psychological findings of Dr.

> Jung.

I am mostly interested in Jung as a political philosopher, as I have

said more than once. That is quite enough to be going on with, for

now. It is fascinating how much he knows and understands, and how

much, I have to say, many of his readers miss. If one day I get beyond

that, so be it, and if it is not my fate to do so, so be that as well.

Maybe next incarnation ;-).

Certainly there is no need for you to be sorry.

regards,

Dan Watkins

>

>

> regards,

>

>

>