Re: research questions

[Guest guest]

writes:

>

> This is a somewhat timely inquiry with respect to any discussion of

> current affairs and the world of religion.

>

.. Of which, Qutb has three principal ones: against the

> idea of a God-Man, Jesus; against the spiritual materialism of the

> West he saw as following from this heresy; and against the

> accommodation of Islam to co-existence with the middle revelation of

> the New Testament and other religious, social, and political heresies.

>>

> However, he was neither a psychologizing critic viewed in terms of a

> split between psyche and spirit, or, a psychologizing critic in the

> terms of the psychological categories of the Quran. The split for him

> was between those who mistakenly assume that man's measure is equal

> or even close to the divine order that only God measures, and, what

> for Qutb was an absolute, the fact that man can only ascertain and

> obtain his proper role through submission to God.

,

Thank you for the fascinating info on Qutb. I realize Qutb made no

psychological statements but I thought it would be interesting if you did.

If we look at Qutb and terror psychologically, what do you think? Jung said

that for a projection to work there must be a hook to hang it on. Do you

think Qutb's ideas provide that hook as they filtered through the obscuring

sieve of terrorism? Do we project our own fear of an unholy science divorced

from feeling onto the terrorists who would try to destroy us? Not to mention

what their projections might be.

[Guest guest]

Dear Everybody on this noble subject of ancient history, Old Testament and Muslims,

We will all believe whichever part seems closer to our emotions. SC and I have a difference. We come from different views. I accept what he says as his understanding, and mine as my understanding. The collective unconscious will know the actual facts, and just perhaps has given us a clue...if it is necessary for us.

We are back on the G-D problem and I don't maintain I know the beginning of religious thought anywhere or anytime.Let others argue about it. I have enough facts(?) to be content, and whether I am wrong or right really is of no concern to me as long as I have the Holy Spirit and the One in my soul. I enjoy scholarship because it is fun to me for my personal use. I am no authority.And I no longer care to convince anyone.

I guess I am just tired of having to prove every point or being called "on the defensive"

The world will not stop if I am wrong, not will the important part of me. If I have part of the truth , fine. I don't need to impress anyone with anything...in fact I wonder why we are doing this, but we are so used to questioning anything anyone says, and we love to prove the other wrong. A waste of time, energy and I don't see the love. Honest questions are fine, but mostly we set out to impress each other with our genius.

There are lots of great sources out there. Sorry, I ever got into this...I had thought the answer rather obvious...but then what else would you expect from me, knowing my background.?

And as far as "believing" facts. My assumption is that if the majority of historical authorities , in this case, have a tentative answer, that is good enough for me. To deny the reliability of all information, as someone said, is to my mind a fool's solution. I believe "so and so "historical facts until new discoveries are made. For me, to believe someone is the first reaction. Maybe I will later have to question.

I also believe we can trust well known facts until new ones disprove them....I don't have to go through life not knowing anything whose attribution is not my very own experimement.To disbelieve is not my path in life.

So color me foolish... I have no intention of questioning every single fact in existence...I don't have the time or inclination to think I know better. In general I will go along with the newest available. even if it means reconsidering my position.

Tired Toni

[Guest guest]

Toni, all,

I just asked straight forward questions about what you wrote. I

already know you write what is true for you.

Whereas, my interest is in the fact behind what is true.

So:

Request clarification.

>T:Islam began in the New Testament around 600C.E.

What do you mean by this?

>T: I have no idea of the prophets of Islam once it became a separate religion.

Could you expand on the idea that Islam was not at some point separate?

***

Please follow up on this:

T:The boy Ishmael became the father of Islam around 600A.D.

(For example.)

***

You don't have to step up to the plate. It might be foolish to do so.

But, the case is:

'Islam began in the New Testament'

'boy Ishmael became the father of Islam around 600A.D.'

'Islam once it became a separate religion'

may well state truth you believe in, but I'm just interested in what

actual truth --besides your own belief-- you're trying to communicate

here.

I already know about the factual history of Islam, right?

regards,

[Guest guest]

Carol, all,

I lost this kind reply a few weeks ago. Coming to it now.

SC:The split for him was between those who mistakenly assume that

man's measure is equal or even close to the divine order that only

God measures, and, what for Qutb was an absolute, the fact that man

can only ascertain and obtain his proper role through submission to

God.

CS:If we look at Qutb and terror psychologically, what do you think?

CS :Do you think Qutb's ideas provide that hook as they filtered

through the obscuring sieve of terrorism?

Inasmuch as any world view and expression about the world view is,

finally, about 'psyche in the world,' there is no doubt the hooks are

there in Qutb. I have no idea about how much Qutb has filtered

through and down into the ideas of jihadis. The peculiar

psychological actuality is that, for reasons both known and obscured,

Islamicist jihadis, (as well as terrorists associated with the

Palestinian cause, and other terrorists elsewhere,) will end their

lives. It's this kamikaze mentality, (and it isn't one mentality of

course' nor is it a new psychological development,) that is most in

relief for me.

But I don't how this works in practice. If the most reduced central

idea of Qutb, that to be guided by God is natural, to be self-guided

is not, plugs in here, I can suppose that jihadis are indoctrinated

with the idea that there actions are God-driven (and derived,) and

implemented against the 'jahiliyyah', those in violation of the

Divine guidance, and ignorant of the 'divine' epistemology, ontology.

***

CS:Do we project our own fear of an unholy science divorced from

feeling onto the terrorists who would try to destroy us?

I have no idea. This question is in the form, 'do we project' so I

reckon you're speaking of a collective projection. I would note, that

if there is this quality of collective identification, that it

roughly matches the impersonal man-made science with the impersonal

God-made Divine 'science'.

The groups most exercised unconsciously about both science and Islam,

tend to hold very one-sided views; science is bad, Islam is bad. Then

invoke the superiority of their own world view.

(In this case I'm jumping to the idea often held as a fundamental of

antipathy, that Islam is a religion of conquest seeking to impose its

ideal once and for all, and this would include all those who believe

Islam simply is an abject irredeemable religion.)

But the question suggests that we're (groups,) are afraid of

something. I wonder what the truth is. I've met almost no one who

seems to me is really frightened of terrorism here in the United

States. When I listen to call-in shows at moments when the problem of

Islam/Terrorism is brought up, what I often hear is garden-variety

hatred. In the US we enjoy the freedom to hate intensely and express

it publicly! But, if the subject matter was African-American

culture/rap and gangsterism, or, liberal democrats/socialism and

government control, you'd hear the same thing; only the nouns would

change.

***

As it happens, often the collective language alters and with this

there is something hidden from view which is psychological and

collective. Recently the Bush administration has adjusted the " brand "

from The Global War on Terrorism, to: The Global Struggle against

Violent Extremism.

War is now struggle; terrorism is now violent extremism; Global

remains unchanged. (Global is kind of a hinge here.)

How curious a psychological manifestation! (I wonder what deficit of

irony could bring such an ironic phrase to the surface

unintentionally.)

To mangle Qutb, his formula might be the global struggle against

violent measured/made/guided by man alone.

Anyway... to set up two sides and the cause of struggle is always

going to be interesting in a psychological sense. Again, I don't know

about the psychological equation between fear of unholy science and

fear of unholy terrorism.

I've beaten around the bush here. What do you sense?

regards,

[Guest guest]

Hi , thanks for getting back to this.

> SC:The split for him was between those who mistakenly assume that

> man's measure is equal or even close to the divine order that only

> God measures, and, what for Qutb was an absolute, the fact that man

> can only ascertain and obtain his proper role through submission to

> God.

I first heard about Qutb on NPR where they were interviewing a guy from the

New York Times? about an in depth article he had written on Qutb. From this

broadcast and as in your statement above it seemed to me that his critique

of the west could be boiled down to the same thing that Jung was saying:

spirit has been divorced from matter. I connected this critique to science

only because Jung did. And this was the problem Wolfgang i struggled

with and the reason he turned to Jung.

> Inasmuch as any world view and expression about the world view is,

> finally, about 'psyche in the world,' there is no doubt the hooks are

> there in Qutb. I have no idea about how much Qutb has filtered

> through and down into the ideas of jihadis. The peculiar

> psychological actuality is that, for reasons both known and obscured,

> Islamicist jihadis, (as well as terrorists associated with the

> Palestinian cause, and other terrorists elsewhere,) will end their

> lives. It's this kamikaze mentality, (and it isn't one mentality of

> course' nor is it a new psychological development,) that is most in

> relief for me.

Maybe you know more about this than the above author but in that interview

they said bin Ladin claimed Qutb as a great influence.

> To mangle Qutb, his formula might be the global struggle against

> violent measured/made/guided by man alone.

>

> Anyway... to set up two sides and the cause of struggle is always

> going to be interesting in a psychological sense. Again, I don't know

> about the psychological equation between fear of unholy science and

> fear of unholy terrorism.

>

> I've beaten around the bush here. What do you sense?

I was taking a class on von Franz' Number and Time and we chewed over this

Qutb thing a bit and got this far in our thoughts: As Jung tells us, the

split in the west between spirit and matter introduced a falsity to life.

Science was invented by Muslims and spread to the Christian world where this

division between spirit and matter extended to science. Jung and Qutb saw

the same problem (which i called the psychophysical problem) but, of

course, had very different solutions. The Muslims are echoing compensatorily

the thing that's going on in our psyche.

Personally, I had this feeling reaction: We took their beautiful woman

(science) and prostituted her. I guess you could say that this was the

reaction of the unc that rose up in me and I wonder if it is part of the unc

motivation of terrorists.

Carol

ps: I love your cartoon fence guy

[Guest guest]

Carol, all,

First let me advise that I'm not in much agreement with the analytic

psychology as a systematic description of the structures of mental life.

So, when it gets casts onto phenomena as if it were demonstrably true, I,

basically can't get beyond my prejudices even if I can follow along.

I will keep my responses few and short.

SC: I have no idea about how much Qutb has filtered through and down into

the ideas of jihadis.

CS: Maybe you know more about this than the above author but in that

interview they said bin Ladin claimed Qutb as a great influence.

" I have no idea " must yield to the evidence of the interview, right?

***

The spirit/ matter split fit to the God / Man split makes sense from

within the frame of analytic psychology, but it strikes me as a facile

motion to project them onto Qutb's criticism of the West. I don't know

enough about Qutb to situate his metaphysics against this move. It's an

interesting thesis.

SC: Science was invented by Muslims and spread to the Christian world

Some of that part of science the Muslims protected and that part they

invented spread to the Christian world. The history of science, if you

grant that some version of archaic science took place in the far east,

Africa, in the Americas, as well as the Greek science protected by the

Muslims and some Europeans, doesn't suggest it was ever invented somewhere

singular.

CS: I had this feeling reaction: We took their beautiful woman

> (science) and prostituted her. I guess you could say that this was the

> reaction of the unc that rose up in me and I wonder if it is part of the

> unc motivation of terrorists.

If you project the analytic psychology onto all human life, taking its

veracity for granted, then I 'spose you can speak of it in this way.

Unfortunately, it's an ironically unscientific sentiment too.

The most fascinating proposal is that science can exist in relationship to

humankind through which the opposite of being 'prostituted' is effected.

What would this science and human eros be like?

regards,

[Guest guest]

> Carol, all,

>

> First let me advise that I'm not in much agreement with the analytic

> psychology as a systematic description of the structures of mental life.

> So, when it gets casts onto phenomena as if it were demonstrably true, I,

> basically can't get beyond my prejudices even if I can follow along.

Gosh, , I would never think of Jung's ideas as more than hypotheses.

I wouldn't make more of them than he did. It's just that, on this list, I

didn't think it would be necessary to preface things in a way that would

make that clear - sorry if I irked the scientist in you.

>> SC: I have no idea about how much Qutb has filtered through and down into

> the ideas of jihadis.

>

> CS: Maybe you know more about this than the above author but in that

> interview they said bin Ladin claimed Qutb as a great influence.

>

> " I have no idea " must yield to the evidence of the interview, right?

I guess so.

>

> The spirit/ matter split fit to the God / Man split makes sense from

> within the frame of analytic psychology, but it strikes me as a facile

> motion to project them onto Qutb's criticism of the West. I don't know

> enough about Qutb to situate his metaphysics against this move. It's an

> interesting thesis.

It wasn't a projection, more like a " what if? " . It's Jung that ties the two

together, though.

>

> SC: Science was invented by Muslims and spread to the Christian world

>

> Some of that part of science the Muslims protected and that part they

> invented spread to the Christian world. The history of science, if you

> grant that some version of archaic science took place in the far east,

> Africa, in the Americas, as well as the Greek science protected by the

> Muslims and some Europeans, doesn't suggest it was ever invented somewhere

> singular.

Right, I didn't bother to give the whole picture

>

> CS: I had this feeling reaction: We took their beautiful woman

>> (science) and prostituted her. I guess you could say that this was the

>> reaction of the unc that rose up in me and I wonder if it is part of the

>> unc motivation of terrorists.

>

> If you project the analytic psychology onto all human life, taking its

> veracity for granted, then I 'spose you can speak of it in this way.

> Unfortunately, it's an ironically unscientific sentiment too.

Not making any veristic statements, just playing with an idea.

>

> The most fascinating proposal is that science can exist in relationship to

> humankind through which the opposite of being 'prostituted' is effected.

> What would this science and human eros be like?

I agree, this is the fascinating part. Maybe it would be a place where

scientists felt free to study synchronicity without fear of ridicule or

certain things wouldn't be done just because we can.

Carol

>

> regards,

>

>

[Guest guest]

Carol, all,

Hi. You wrote,

>CS:Not making any veristic statements, just playing with an idea.

I'm sorry for spiking your playing and hypotheses. Doing so is

feeling that pea under my mattress and being unconscious about the

bump. Thanks for the gentle reminder.

***

>SC: The most fascinating proposal is that science can exist in relationship to

> > humankind through which the opposite of being 'prostituted' is effected.

>> What would this science and human eros be like?

>

>I agree, this is the fascinating part. Maybe it would be a place where

>scientists felt free to study synchronicity without fear of ridicule or

>certain things wouldn't be done just because we can.

Yes, and study the limits imposed by their own prejudices too. And,

consider the the unpredictability inherent in ascertaining

consequences. Understand better: the paradoxical entanglement of

ignorance and knowledge.

Knowledge is dangerous; self knowledge, scientific, poetic,

psychological, etc. It's harder to describe what insures that it

won't be harmful then it is to describe the certain ways it may be

harmful.

***

There are tentative suppositions about the psychological factors

which underlie harmful antipathies and the kinds of sureties which

underpin hypostatic fundamentalisms. Yes, the analytic psychology

gives us a conceptual and theoretical framework to help us coordinate

our sensings and intuitions.

It's easy to simplify our research so that it only satisfies our own

psychological needs to see the problem outside of our self. For

example, several things are notable albeit complex in their details.

Religions and science seem to me very confused about the actualities

of sexuality and pleasure and women.

Also, there is the idealistic current: that history is to be worked

out much more ideally at some future point; that it will achieve a

paradise of sorts. Then there is the " a priori " conceit: that human

life at its highest need only implement certain principles surely,

and, inasmuch as this can't be perfectly implemented, nevertheless,

when accomplished, it too is the ideal state of mankind, with some

obedient, and most others suffering the consequences of being

slackers.

***

God high above? God at the controller? In every heart? In every atom?

Who you are? What you know? Ignorance? Desire? Happiness? Love?

Perfection? Imperfection?

regards,

[Guest guest]

SC: Knowledge is dangerous; self knowledge, scientific, poetic,

psychological, etc. It's harder to describe what insures that it

won't be harmful then it is to describe the certain ways it may be

harmful.

CS: When I'm confronted with this type of situation I always turn to the I

Ching. It always shows the invisible factors. Of course, I had to experiment

with it for twenty years before I started to twig it.

SC: God high above? God at the controller? In every heart? In every atom?

Who you are? What you know? Ignorance? Desire? Happiness? Love?

Perfection? Imperfection?

CS: Jung describes it for me: God is an experience. That's all we can really

know.

Carol

regards,