Re: America's Shadow

[Guest guest]

I irritate one and all every time I point out the "Jungian slip" of Levy but it is malignant egophrenia. Not malignant shadowphrenia.

The concept of shadow has been oversimplified - one does not integrate what hinders one which in the case of shadow is the hubris which is deposited there first collectively and then individually by the ego. To cleanse the soul, one must cleanse shadow. And allow it to express itself without the ego. Shadow is what the soul seeks and what the soul wishes to become. Deep within. Buried underneath all the hubris. One must not integrate the hubris because to do so merely adds to the hubris.

Stalking is merely a manifestation of the malignant egophrenia in some ways and too many find it too easy to blame the victim rather than hold the victimizer accountable.

While the victim is often a societal mirror, so is the victimizer. Bully, stalker, terrorist. All the same archetypal energy. Energy which emanates from what Hillman calls the bad seed which seeks to destroy the good seed because it cannot bear its reflection.

We revere the predators among us and revile their prey. Perhaps out of fear that we may become their next prey? And then become predators believing that ensures we will not?

Easy to say you are in control of your life once you become a predator. And easy to say your prey simply lost control of theirs. Particularly when you took that control from them.

Subject: America's ShadowTo: JUNG-FIRE Date: Friday, July 16, 2010, 11:32 AM

I just published through Lulu.com a short book. In it I use what I think are Jungian ideas to elucidate the concept of America's Shadow. Can a country have a shadow? Could that shadow be tied to the personality/temperament of one of the most powerful groups in it? When I was writing the chapter on America's shadow I had in the back of my mind also the concept of the unvalidated unconcsious from intersubjectivity theory. When I talk about the key to America becoming congruent again as integrating her shadow that is what I was thinking about. I think Jung's concept of the shadow can help us think about what is wrong with America today and point the way to her spiritual renewal.http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/organized-gang-stalking-new-torture-tactic-to-neutralize-citizens/11780529?productTrackingContext=search_results/search_shelf/center/1BonnieWho Has Integrated Her Shadow - And Hence Is Now Also A Shameless Promoter

[Guest guest]

>

> I just published through Lulu.com a short book.

> In it I use what I think are Jungian ideas to elucidate the concept of

America's Shadow.

Painting by numbers with Jungian hues?

> Can a country have a shadow?

> Could that shadow be tied to the personality/temperament of one of the most

powerful groups in it?

> When I was writing the chapter on America's shadow I had in the back of my

mind also the concept of the unvalidated unconcsious from intersubjectivity

theory.

> When I talk about the key to America becoming congruent again as integrating

her shadow that is what I was thinking about.

> I think Jung's concept of the shadow can help us think about what is wrong

with America today and point the way to her spiritual renewal.

As if `spiritual renewal' can't or hasn't been

co-opted by `religious revival'?

>

http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/organized-gang-stalking-new-torture-tactic\

-to-neutralize-citizens/11780529?productTrackingContext=search_results/search_sh\

elf/center/1

>

> Bonnie

> Who Has Integrated Her Shadow - And Hence Is Now Also A Shameless Promoter

As opposed to her Shadow `integrating' her?

Reification Fallacies seem frequent enough when scoped to the level of the

individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29

If a Jungian Shadow has no mass nor energy then, lacking standing as a physical

object capable of study by physicists using empirical methods, it qualifies as a

metaphysical figment of imagination.

For argument's sake let's say a Shadow is something applicable to an individual.

Does `shadow' apply to the parts from which the individual seems composed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

Does `shadow' apply to aggregates which the individual may play a part?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

As for `gang stalking', what differentiates a gang qua `gang' from a collective?

Were Jung alive today would he use the term `gang unconscious'

rather than collective unconscious?

As for `stalking', without adequate liminality criteria to discern stalking from

non-stalking the term is not sufficiently symbol grounded to mean more than

undecoded inkblots vis-a-vis one's own personal projective test. If we can

project `stalking' onto any one or any group without the projection screen

having a viable defense, where does that put the would-be Salem-era witch, the

would-be Nazi-era Jew, the would-be Chaney-Bush era `terrorist', or the would-be

contemporary `gang stalker?

Could this `America's Shadow' qualify as yet more evidence of `The Paranoid

Style in American Politics'

http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid\

_style.html

They ... we ALL `know' who THEY are ... are stalking me, en masse ... until

proven otherwise?

Yes we can project a suchness onto a collective of individuals as easily as we

can a collection of organs.

And it doesn't take C.G. Jung show us how or to explain the phenomena involved,

IMO.

Gene

[Guest guest]

We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well.

Not sure what Hofstadter's point is. Or what your point is.

Subject: Re: America's ShadowTo: JUNG-FIRE Date: Friday, July 16, 2010, 1:33 PM

>> I just published through Lulu.com a short book. > In it I use what I think are Jungian ideas to elucidate the concept of America's Shadow. Painting by numbers with Jungian hues?> Can a country have a shadow? > Could that shadow be tied to the personality/temperament of one of the most powerful groups in it? > When I was writing the chapter on America's shadow I had in the back of my mind also the concept of the unvalidated unconcsious from intersubjectivity theory. > When I talk about the key to America becoming congruent again as integrating her shadow that is what I was thinking about. > I think Jung's concept of the shadow can

help us think about what is wrong with America today and point the way to her spiritual renewal.As if `spiritual renewal' can't or hasn't been co-opted by `religious revival'?> http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/organized-gang-stalking-new-torture-tactic-to-neutralize-citizens/11780529?productTrackingContext=search_results/search_shelf/center/1> > Bonnie> Who Has Integrated Her Shadow - And Hence Is Now Also A Shameless PromoterAs opposed to her Shadow `integrating' her?Reification Fallacies seem frequent enough when scoped to the level of the individual.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29If a Jungian Shadow has no mass nor energy then, lacking standing as a physical object capable of study by physicists using empirical methods, it qualifies as a metaphysical figment of imagination.For argument's sake let's say a Shadow is something applicable to an individual. Does `shadow' apply to the parts from which the individual seems composed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_divisionDoes `shadow' apply to aggregates which the individual may play a part?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_compositionAs for `gang stalking', what differentiates a gang qua `gang' from a collective?Were Jung alive today would he use the term `gang unconscious'

rather than collective unconscious?As for `stalking', without adequate liminality criteria to discern stalking from non-stalking the term is not sufficiently symbol grounded to mean more than undecoded inkblots vis-a-vis one's own personal projective test. If we can project `stalking' onto any one or any group without the projection screen having a viable defense, where does that put the would-be Salem-era witch, the would-be Nazi-era Jew, the would-be Chaney-Bush era `terrorist', or the would-be contemporary `gang stalker?Could this `America's Shadow' qualify as yet more evidence of `The Paranoid Style in American Politics'http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.htmlThey ... we ALL `know' who THEY are ... are stalking me, en masse ... until

proven otherwise?Yes we can project a suchness onto a collective of individuals as easily as we can a collection of organs.And it doesn't take C.G. Jung show us how or to explain the phenomena involved, IMO.Gene

[Guest guest]

 

We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well.

Not sure what Hofstadter's point is. Or what your point is. Uncertainty so noted.As I am uncertain why you chose that particular quote.

Perhaps you can ask others what `point' or `points' they apperceived via their projective processes.I just present the ink blots, I can't interpret them for you.Warmest Regards,   Gene

Subject: Re: America's Shadow

To: JUNG-FIRE Date: Friday, July 16, 2010, 1:33 PM

 

>

> I just published through Lulu.com a short book. > In it I use what I think are Jungian ideas to elucidate the concept of America's Shadow. Painting by numbers with Jungian hues?> Can a country have a shadow?

> Could that shadow be tied to the personality/temperament of one of the most powerful groups in it? > When I was writing the chapter on America's shadow I had in the back of my mind also the concept of the unvalidated unconcsious from intersubjectivity theory.

> When I talk about the key to America becoming congruent again as integrating her shadow that is what I was thinking about. > I think Jung's concept of the shadow can

help us think about what is wrong with America today and point the way to her spiritual renewal.As if `spiritual renewal' can't or hasn't been co-opted by `religious revival'?> http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/organized-gang-stalking-new-torture-tactic-to-neutralize-citizens/11780529?productTrackingContext=search_results/search_shelf/center/1

> > Bonnie> Who Has Integrated Her Shadow - And Hence Is Now Also A Shameless PromoterAs opposed to her Shadow `integrating' her?Reification Fallacies seem frequent enough when scoped to the level of the individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29If a Jungian Shadow has no mass nor energy then, lacking standing as a physical object capable of study by physicists using empirical methods, it qualifies as a metaphysical figment of imagination.

For argument's sake let's say a Shadow is something applicable to an individual. Does `shadow' apply to the parts from which the individual seems composed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

Does `shadow' apply to aggregates which the individual may play a part?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

As for `gang stalking', what differentiates a gang qua `gang' from a collective?Were Jung alive today would he use the term `gang unconscious'

rather than collective unconscious?As for `stalking', without adequate liminality criteria to discern stalking from non-stalking the term is not sufficiently symbol grounded to mean more than undecoded inkblots vis-a-vis one's own personal projective test. If we can project `stalking' onto any one or any group without the projection screen having a viable defense, where does that put the would-be Salem-era witch, the would-be Nazi-era Jew, the would-be Chaney-Bush era `terrorist', or the would-be contemporary `gang stalker?

Could this `America's Shadow' qualify as yet more evidence of `The Paranoid Style in American Politics'http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html

They ... we ALL `know' who THEY are ... are stalking me, en masse ... until

proven otherwise?Yes we can project a suchness onto a collective of individuals as easily as we can a collection of organs.And it doesn't take C.G. Jung show us how or to explain the phenomena involved, IMO.

Gene

[Guest guest]

My perception of your comments is that you believe people who are stalked are not really being stalked but are merely perceving that they are being stalked and I suppose you also believe that people who are assaulted, robbed, raped and murdered are not really being assaulted, robbed, raped or murdered but are merely perceiving that they are. But then that is merely my perception of your comments. And so maybe I am just paranoid. Or maybe I am just perceptive. Which perhaps takes us back to whether perception is paranoia.

--

Subject: Re: Re: America's ShadowTo: JUNG-FIRE Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 7:38 AM

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 17:13, charli schauseil <charlischauseil@ yahoo.com> wrote:

We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well.

Not sure what Hofstadter's point is. Or what your point is.

Uncertainty so noted.As I am uncertain why you chose that particular quote.Perhaps you can ask others what `point' or `points' they apperceived via their projective processes.I just present the ink blots, I can't interpret them for you.Warmest Regards, Gene

From: gene_sullivan <gene.sullivan@ gmail.com>Subject: Re: America's Shadow

To: JUNG-FIRE@yahoogrou ps.comDate: Friday, July 16, 2010, 1:33 PM

>> I just published through Lulu.com a short book. > In it I use what I think are Jungian ideas to elucidate the concept of America's Shadow. Painting by numbers with Jungian hues?> Can a country have a shadow? > Could that shadow be tied to the personality/ temperament of one of the most powerful groups in it? > When I was writing the chapter on America's shadow I had in the back of my mind also the concept of the unvalidated unconcsious from intersubjectivity theory. > When I talk about the key to America becoming congruent again as integrating her shadow that is what I was thinking about. > I think Jung's concept of the shadow can help us think about what is wrong with

America today and point the way to her spiritual renewal.As if `spiritual renewal' can't or hasn't been co-opted by `religious revival'?> http://www.lulu. com/product/ paperback/ organized- gang-stalking- new-torture- tactic-to- neutralize- citizens/ 11780529? productTrackingC ontext=search_ results/search_ shelf/center/ 1> > Bonnie> Who Has Integrated Her Shadow - And Hence Is Now Also A Shameless PromoterAs opposed to her Shadow `integrating' her?Reification Fallacies seem frequent enough when scoped to the level of the individual.http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Reification_

%28fallacy% 29If a Jungian Shadow has no mass nor energy then, lacking standing as a physical object capable of study by physicists using empirical methods, it qualifies as a metaphysical figment of imagination.For argument's sake let's say a Shadow is something applicable to an individual. Does `shadow' apply to the parts from which the individual seems composed? http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Fallacy_of_ divisionDoes `shadow' apply to aggregates which the individual may play a part?http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Fallacy_of_ compositionAs for `gang stalking', what differentiates a gang qua `gang' from a collective?Were Jung alive today would he use the term `gang unconscious' rather than collective

unconscious?As for `stalking', without adequate liminality criteria to discern stalking from non-stalking the term is not sufficiently symbol grounded to mean more than undecoded inkblots vis-a-vis one's own personal projective test. If we can project `stalking' onto any one or any group without the projection screen having a viable defense, where does that put the would-be Salem-era witch, the would-be Nazi-era Jew, the would-be Chaney-Bush era `terrorist', or the would-be contemporary `gang stalker?Could this `America's Shadow' qualify as yet more evidence of `The Paranoid Style in American Politics'http://www.kenrahn. com/jfk/conspira cy_theory/ the_paranoid_ mentality/ the_paranoid_ style.htmlThey ... we ALL `know' who THEY are ... are stalking me, en masse ... until proven

otherwise?Yes we can project a suchness onto a collective of individuals as easily as we can a collection of organs.And it doesn't take C.G. Jung show us how or to explain the phenomena involved, IMO.Gene

[Guest guest]

 

My perception of your comments is that you believe people who are stalked are not really being stalked but are merely perceving that they are being stalked and I suppose you also believe that people who are assaulted, robbed, raped and murdered are not really being assaulted, robbed, raped or murdered but are merely perceiving that they are. 

If a_priori someone is-qua-IS `being' some apperceived theme without criteria for that VERB/process, then any person can claim or accuse any other person of an `identity' independent of the processes required by individuals when behaving rationally.

If I proclaim you a `stalker' without you have enacted processes or criteria required for such an assessment, then how do you defend yourself against such a claim?Or likewise with any other subjective assessment such as `abuser'.

I've seen too much of these sort of behavior in the Cult of the Victim which has arisen with the PC movement.sh plt-4.2.5-bin-i386-linux-ubuntu-jaunty.sh

if somebody steals offense they are not required to return it, but are allowed to wield it like a weapon.When the person looking at the ink blot apperceives a theme then it IS -- post apperceived, post-reified, post-nominalized -- as it is SEEMED into being.

Do I `know' if you have been, are, or will be `stalked'?  No.I don't even know what criteria you have, do, or will use to assess such.It's your projective test.  Make of it what you will.

I hope you'll forgive me if I fail to respond-as-if either `the sky is falling' or `firemen are stalking us'.I reserve the right to interpret the ink blots via my own projective processes.Sans evidence or criteria to support criteria-based cognition where does that leave those of us not walking a mile in your shoes?

Seem I lacking in sympathy or empathy?I don't mean to disparage your personal experience.Nor do I mean to rubber stamp your experience as if objective fact in which any number of firemen should be rounded up and charged with `stalking' because they belong to the category of `firemen' and it's okay to malpractice categorical discrimination pursuant to empathizing with those we favor over those we don't.

If you wish to stalk or defame your would-be stalkers that is your business.I hope you'll forgive me if I don't enact some sort of sympathetic jihad against my local cellar savers.Stalkers are like pink elephants ... and we cannot think of pink elephants.

Though I occasionally find my thoughts better applied to Processes than Pink Nominalizations awaiting denominalization.Regards,  Gene 

But then that is merely my perception of your comments. And so maybe I am just paranoid.  Or maybe I am just perceptive. Which perhaps takes us back to whether perception is paranoia. 

 

--

Subject: Re: Re: America's Shadow

To: JUNG-FIRE Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 7:38 AM

 

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 17:13, charli schauseil <charlischauseil@ yahoo.com> wrote:

 

We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well.

Not sure what Hofstadter's point is. Or what your point is. 

Uncertainty so noted.As I am uncertain why you chose that particular quote.Perhaps you can ask others what `point' or `points' they apperceived via their projective processes.I just present the ink blots, I can't interpret them for you.

Warmest Regards,   Gene

From: gene_sullivan <gene.sullivan@ gmail.com>

Subject: Re: America's Shadow

To: JUNG-FIRE@yahoogrou ps.comDate: Friday, July 16, 2010, 1:33 PM

 

>> I just published through Lulu.com a short book. > In it I use what I think are Jungian ideas to elucidate the concept of America's Shadow. Painting by numbers with Jungian hues?> Can a country have a shadow?

> Could that shadow be tied to the personality/ temperament of one of the most powerful groups in it? > When I was writing the chapter on America's shadow I had in the back of my mind also the concept of the unvalidated unconcsious from intersubjectivity theory.

> When I talk about the key to America becoming congruent again as integrating her shadow that is what I was thinking about. > I think Jung's concept of the shadow can help us think about what is wrong with

America today and point the way to her spiritual renewal.As if `spiritual renewal' can't or hasn't been co-opted by `religious revival'?> http://www.lulu. com/product/ paperback/ organized- gang-stalking- new-torture- tactic-to- neutralize- citizens/ 11780529? productTrackingC ontext=search_ results/search_ shelf/center/ 1

> > Bonnie> Who Has Integrated Her Shadow - And Hence Is Now Also A Shameless PromoterAs opposed to her Shadow `integrating' her?Reification Fallacies seem frequent enough when scoped to the level of the individual.

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Reification_

%28fallacy% 29If a Jungian Shadow has no mass nor energy then, lacking standing as a physical object capable of study by physicists using empirical methods, it qualifies as a metaphysical figment of imagination.

For argument's sake let's say a Shadow is something applicable to an individual. Does `shadow' apply to the parts from which the individual seems composed? http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Fallacy_of_ division

Does `shadow' apply to aggregates which the individual may play a part?http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Fallacy_of_ composition

As for `gang stalking', what differentiates a gang qua `gang' from a collective?Were Jung alive today would he use the term `gang unconscious' rather than collective

unconscious?As for `stalking', without adequate liminality criteria to discern stalking from non-stalking the term is not sufficiently symbol grounded to mean more than undecoded inkblots vis-a-vis one's own personal projective test. If we can project `stalking' onto any one or any group without the projection screen having a viable defense, where does that put the would-be Salem-era witch, the would-be Nazi-era Jew, the would-be Chaney-Bush era `terrorist', or the would-be contemporary `gang stalker?

Could this `America's Shadow' qualify as yet more evidence of `The Paranoid Style in American Politics'http://www.kenrahn. com/jfk/conspira cy_theory/ the_paranoid_ mentality/ the_paranoid_ style.html

They ... we ALL `know' who THEY are ... are stalking me, en masse ... until proven

otherwise?Yes we can project a suchness onto a collective of individuals as easily as we can a collection of organs.And it doesn't take C.G. Jung show us how or to explain the phenomena involved, IMO.

Gene

[Guest guest]

I would respond to this but I suspect Alice would prefer that I not so I won't.

From: gene_sullivan <gene.sullivan@ gmail.com>Subject: Re: America's Shadow

To: JUNG-FIRE@yahoogrou ps.com

Date: Friday, July 16, 2010, 1:33 PM

>> I just published through Lulu.com a short book. > In it I use what I think are Jungian ideas to elucidate the concept of America's Shadow. Painting by numbers with Jungian hues?> Can a country have a shadow? > Could that shadow be tied to the personality/ temperament of one of the most powerful groups in it? > When I was writing the chapter on America's shadow I had in the back of my mind also the concept of the unvalidated unconcsious from intersubjectivity theory. > When I talk about the key to America becoming congruent again as integrating her shadow that is what I was thinking about. > I think Jung's concept of the shadow can help us think about what is wrong

with America today and point the way to her spiritual renewal.As if `spiritual renewal' can't or hasn't been co-opted by `religious revival'?> http://www.lulu. com/product/ paperback/ organized- gang-stalking- new-torture- tactic-to- neutralize- citizens/ 11780529? productTrackingC ontext=search_ results/search_ shelf/center/ 1

> > Bonnie> Who Has Integrated Her Shadow - And Hence Is Now Also A Shameless PromoterAs opposed to her Shadow `integrating' her?Reification Fallacies seem frequent enough when scoped to the level of the individual.http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Reification_ %28fallacy% 29If a Jungian Shadow has no mass nor energy then, lacking standing as a physical object capable of study by physicists using empirical methods, it qualifies as a metaphysical figment of imagination.For argument's sake let's say a Shadow is something applicable to an individual. Does `shadow' apply to the parts from which the individual seems composed? http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Fallacy_of_ divisionDoes `shadow'

apply to aggregates which the individual may play a part?http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Fallacy_of_ compositionAs for `gang stalking', what differentiates a gang qua `gang' from a collective?Were Jung alive today would he use the term `gang unconscious' rather than collective unconscious?As for `stalking', without adequate liminality criteria to discern stalking from non-stalking the term is not sufficiently symbol grounded to mean more than undecoded inkblots vis-a-vis one's own personal projective test. If we can project `stalking' onto any one or any group without the projection screen having a viable defense, where does that put the would-be Salem-era witch, the would-be Nazi-era Jew, the would-be Chaney-Bush era `terrorist', or the would-be contemporary `gang stalker?Could this `America's Shadow' qualify as yet more

evidence of `The Paranoid Style in American Politics'http://www.kenrahn. com/jfk/conspira cy_theory/ the_paranoid_ mentality/ the_paranoid_ style.html

They ... we ALL `know' who THEY are ... are stalking me, en masse ... until proven otherwise?Yes we can project a suchness onto a collective of individuals as easily as we can a collection of organs.And it doesn't take C.G. Jung show us how or to explain the phenomena involved, IMO.Gene

[Guest guest]

Second draft ... after noticing some obvious unintended gaffs.

 

My perception of your comments is that you believe people who are stalked are not really being stalked but are merely perceving that they are being stalked and I suppose you also believe that people who are assaulted, robbed, raped and murdered are not really being assaulted, robbed, raped or murdered but are merely perceiving that they are. 

If a_priori someone is-qua-IS `being' some apperceived theme without criteria for that VERB/process, then any person can claim or accuse any other person of an `identity' independent of the processes required by individuals when behaving rationally.

If I proclaim you a `stalker' without you have enacted processes or criteria required for such an assessment, then how do you defend yourself against such a claim?Or likewise with any other subjective assessment such as `abuser'.

I've seen too much of this sort of behavior in the Cult of the Victim which has arisen with the PC movement.

if somebody steals offense they are not required to return it, but are allowed to wield it like a weapon.When the person looking at the ink blot apperceives a theme then it IS -- post apperceived, post-reified, post-nominalized -- as it is SEEMED into being.

Do I `know' if you have been, are, or will be `stalked'?  No.I don't even know what criteria you have, do, or will use to assess such.It's your projective test.  Make of it what you will.

I hope you'll forgive me if I fail to respond-as-if either `the sky is falling' or `firemen are stalking us'.I reserve the right to interpret the ink blots via my own projective processes.Sans evidence or criteria to support criteria-based cognition where does that leave those of us not walking a mile in your shoes?

Seem I lacking in sympathy or empathy?I don't mean to disparage your personal experience.Nor do I mean to rubber stamp your experience as if objective fact in which any number of firemen should be rounded up and charged with `stalking' because they belong to the category of `firemen' and it's okay to malpractice categorical discrimination pursuant to empathizing with those we favor over those we don't.

If you wish to stalk or defame your would-be stalkers that is your business.I hope you'll forgive me if I don't enact some sort of sympathetic jihad against my local cellar savers.Stalkers are like pink elephants ... and we cannot think of pink elephants.

Though I occasionally find my thoughts better applied to Processes than Pink Nominalizations awaiting denominalization.Regards,  Gene 

But then that is merely my perception of your comments. And so maybe I am just paranoid.  Or maybe I am just perceptive. Which perhaps takes us back to whether perception is paranoia. 

 

--

Subject: Re: Re: America's Shadow

To: JUNG-FIRE Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 7:38 AM

 

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 17:13, charli schauseil <charlischauseil@ yahoo.com> wrote:

 

We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well.

Not sure what Hofstadter's point is. Or what your point is. 

Uncertainty so noted.As I am uncertain why you chose that particular quote.Perhaps you can ask others what `point' or `points' they apperceived via their projective processes.I just present the ink blots, I can't interpret them for you.

Warmest Regards,   Gene

From: gene_sullivan <gene.sullivan@ gmail.com>

Subject: Re: America's Shadow

To: JUNG-FIRE@yahoogrou ps.comDate: Friday, July 16, 2010, 1:33 PM

 

>> I just published through Lulu.com a short book. > In it I use what I think are Jungian ideas to elucidate the concept of America's Shadow. Painting by numbers with Jungian hues?> Can a country have a shadow?

> Could that shadow be tied to the personality/ temperament of one of the most powerful groups in it? > When I was writing the chapter on America's shadow I had in the back of my mind also the concept of the unvalidated unconcsious from intersubjectivity theory.

> When I talk about the key to America becoming congruent again as integrating her shadow that is what I was thinking about. > I think Jung's concept of the shadow can help us think about what is wrong with

America today and point the way to her spiritual renewal.As if `spiritual renewal' can't or hasn't been co-opted by `religious revival'?> http://www.lulu. com/product/ paperback/ organized- gang-stalking- new-torture- tactic-to- neutralize- citizens/ 11780529? productTrackingC ontext=search_ results/search_ shelf/center/ 1

> > Bonnie> Who Has Integrated Her Shadow - And Hence Is Now Also A Shameless PromoterAs opposed to her Shadow `integrating' her?Reification Fallacies seem frequent enough when scoped to the level of the individual.

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Reification_

%28fallacy% 29If a Jungian Shadow has no mass nor energy then, lacking standing as a physical object capable of study by physicists using empirical methods, it qualifies as a metaphysical figment of imagination.

For argument's sake let's say a Shadow is something applicable to an individual. Does `shadow' apply to the parts from which the individual seems composed? http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Fallacy_of_ division

Does `shadow' apply to aggregates which the individual may play a part?http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Fallacy_of_ composition

As for `gang stalking', what differentiates a gang qua `gang' from a collective?Were Jung alive today would he use the term `gang unconscious' rather than collective

unconscious?As for `stalking', without adequate liminality criteria to discern stalking from non-stalking the term is not sufficiently symbol grounded to mean more than undecoded inkblots vis-a-vis one's own personal projective test. If we can project `stalking' onto any one or any group without the projection screen having a viable defense, where does that put the would-be Salem-era witch, the would-be Nazi-era Jew, the would-be Chaney-Bush era `terrorist', or the would-be contemporary `gang stalker?

Could this `America's Shadow' qualify as yet more evidence of `The Paranoid Style in American Politics'http://www.kenrahn. com/jfk/conspira cy_theory/ the_paranoid_ mentality/ the_paranoid_ style.html

They ... we ALL `know' who THEY are ... are stalking me, en masse ... until proven

otherwise?Yes we can project a suchness onto a collective of individuals as easily as we can a collection of organs.And it doesn't take C.G. Jung show us how or to explain the phenomena involved, IMO.

Gene

[Guest guest]

 

I would respond to this but I suspect Alice would prefer that I not so I won't. 

Then you might opt to respond to a select set of individuals off-group.If you wish to discuss something I've written off-group I welcome your input.Perhaps if Bonnie or others interested in an off-group email-based conversation extend you similar invitations you will feel free to include our names in either the `to' field or `cc' field?

Sincerely,  Gene 

From: gene_sullivan <gene.sullivan@ gmail.com>Subject: Re: America's Shadow

To: JUNG-FIRE@yahoogrou ps.com

Date: Friday, July 16, 2010, 1:33 PM

 

>

> I just published through Lulu.com a short book. > In it I use what I think are Jungian ideas to elucidate the concept of America's Shadow. Painting by numbers with Jungian hues?> Can a country have a shadow?

> Could that shadow be tied to the personality/ temperament of one of the most powerful groups in it? > When I was writing the chapter on America's shadow I had in the back of my mind also the concept of the unvalidated unconcsious from intersubjectivity theory.

> When I talk about the key to America becoming congruent again as integrating her shadow that is what I was thinking about. > I think Jung's concept of the shadow can help us think about what is wrong

with America today and point the way to her spiritual renewal.As if `spiritual renewal' can't or hasn't been co-opted by `religious revival'?> http://www.lulu. com/product/ paperback/ organized- gang-stalking- new-torture- tactic-to- neutralize- citizens/ 11780529? productTrackingC ontext=search_ results/search_ shelf/center/ 1

> > Bonnie> Who Has Integrated Her Shadow - And Hence Is Now Also A Shameless PromoterAs opposed to her Shadow `integrating' her?Reification Fallacies seem frequent enough when scoped to the level of the individual.

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Reification_ %28fallacy% 29If a Jungian Shadow has no mass nor energy then, lacking standing as a physical object capable of study by physicists using empirical methods, it qualifies as a metaphysical figment of imagination.

For argument's sake let's say a Shadow is something applicable to an individual. Does `shadow' apply to the parts from which the individual seems composed? http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Fallacy_of_ division

Does `shadow'

apply to aggregates which the individual may play a part?http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Fallacy_of_ composition

As for `gang stalking', what differentiates a gang qua `gang' from a collective?Were Jung alive today would he use the term `gang unconscious' rather than collective unconscious?As for `stalking', without adequate liminality criteria to discern stalking from non-stalking the term is not sufficiently symbol grounded to mean more than undecoded inkblots vis-a-vis one's own personal projective test. If we can project `stalking' onto any one or any group without the projection screen having a viable defense, where does that put the would-be Salem-era witch, the would-be Nazi-era Jew, the would-be Chaney-Bush era `terrorist', or the would-be contemporary `gang stalker?

Could this `America's Shadow' qualify as yet more

evidence of `The Paranoid Style in American Politics'http://www.kenrahn. com/jfk/conspira cy_theory/ the_paranoid_ mentality/ the_paranoid_ style.html

They ... we ALL `know' who THEY are ... are stalking me, en masse ... until proven otherwise?Yes we can project a suchness onto a collective of individuals as easily as we can a collection of organs.

And it doesn't take C.G. Jung show us how or to explain the phenomena involved, IMO.Gene

[Guest guest]

I never met `America' ... what's she like?Would you have us muddle together all the individuals residing in the Americasas if they were a gang of gang stalkers?http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/composition_and_division.htm

Is what's true for your Shadow true for my Shadow?Jung wrote of a Collective Conscience.Did he ever write of a Collective Shadow?How my personal mental model would not become more impoverished to accept such

a fallacy of composition is beyond my imagination.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_compositionI suspect that Virginia Satir would respond to your use of the collective pronoun `America'

with " Who is your America, Bonnie? " Gref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_SatirOn Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 16:57, Bonnie wrote:

 

Making America Conscious of Her Shadow

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=284842810587 & topic=14615

[Guest guest]

Just a quick interjection since this is not my conversation and besides, y'all are way over my Jung-deprived head anyway: Does the US Supreme Court realize/recognize what you've written?

Blissings,SamSearch for Soulhttps://sampatron.wordpress.com

Collectives don't `think' or `feel' or experience `conflict' the way individuals do.Groups do NOT `think', or `feel' or experience `conflicts of conscience' they way that individuals can and do.

[Guest guest]

Hi Gene,

 

I never met `America' ... what's she like?

I've met her and she is as conflicted as any person I have ever met.

Would you have us muddle together all the individuals residing in

the Americas

as if they were a gang of gang stalkers?

Well, when we are in a collective and we have identified with that

collective (America right or wrong) there is a tendency to be gripped

with the collective will which leads one to do/say what normally would

not be done or said.  Each of us has a Nazi residing within ready to

act when the orders are given.

Is what's true for your Shadow true for my Shadow?

Personal shadow is a subset of the universal shadow as is the

collective shadow of any given culture.

Jung wrote of a Collective Conscience.

Did he ever write of a Collective Shadow?

Yes.  Time for you to go rummaging through his words   I know, you

are wondering "Who in hell is this guy who is responding to me?"  My

answer is "It doesn't matter, Gene." 

Happy birthday CG Jung

[Guest guest]

Each of us has a Nazi residing within ready to act when the orders are given.

Not all of us. Some of us toiled and troubled ourselves clearing our shadow of our inner Nazis and are no longer "good Germans..."

As for this discourse it really has taken at times a seemingly "self-defensive" tone on the part of some who should buy the book and critique the book within the framework of the Jungian theory applied to the matter of "predatory behaviors" or simply not comment any further although if they do I would appreciate their emailing me with a list of their books and publications so I can add them to a growing "Dumpster Collection of Notable Jungians."

Subject: Re: America's ShadowTo: JUNG-FIRE Date: Monday, July 26, 2010, 8:47 AM

Hi Gene,

I never met `America' ... what's she like?I've met her and she is as conflicted as any person I have ever met.

Would you have us muddle together all the individuals residing in the Americasas if they were a gang of gang stalkers?Well, when we are in a collective and we have identified with that collective (America right or wrong) there is a tendency to be gripped with the collective will which leads one to do/say what normally would not be done or said. Each of us has a Nazi residing within ready to act when the orders are given.

Is what's true for your Shadow true for my Shadow?Personal shadow is a subset of the universal shadow as is the collective shadow of any given culture.

Jung wrote of a Collective Conscience.Did he ever write of a Collective Shadow?Yes. Time for you to go rummaging through his words I know, you are wondering "Who in hell is this guy who is responding to me?" My answer is "It doesn't matter, Gene." Happy birthday CG Jung

[Guest guest]

Trying again

I never met `America' ... what's she like?

I've met her and she is as conflicted as any person I have ever met.

I wonder if you regard all other gradients as `conflicted'.

I also wonder if you regard all samples within a statistical population

as `conflicted' vis-a-vis a statistical average.

I could care less about statistics, gradients, averages and so on. I

return to the the question you posed "what is she like?" Now given

that there is an America (or is this the focal point of your energized

response?) and that this "America" is located in time and place and

populated by individuals who are "conflicted," America is conflicted.

This shows up in voting patterns, religious factionalism and

interpersonal relationships. That said, this holds true for any

geo-political state.

I just can't help but to experience this gratuitous silliness as

anything but.

Statistical samples can't `think' ... nor do they -- for me -- manifest

anything that I don't project onto them.

What do you find silly?

Would you have us muddle together all the individuals residing

in

the Americas

as if they were a gang of gang stalkers?

Well, when we are in a collective and we have identified with that

collective (America right or wrong) there is a tendency to be gripped

with the collective will which leads one to do/say what normally would

not be done or said.

Each of us has a Nazi residing within ready to

act when the orders are given.

As well as an Iconoclast at the ready to knock every would be

`authority' off his or her pedestal before, while, or after giving

orders.

Did you inner Nazi just assert with authority that each of us resembles

you in this regard?

I don't assert with authority, I made a comment - there is a

difference. If you want certainty and authority, you will have to look

outside the human race and their institutions and statistics. Any

holding to "certainty" is a delusional expression of mana. Of course

you "know" this as a student of Jung's work. As for others resembling

me, I am a unique individual (or so I think). That said, I am not

isolated and share conscious and unconscious contents with the

collective. This is what Jung talks about when following the trail of

the human psyche. Archetypes of polarities - good and evil within each

and everyone of us. We can deny until we turn purple, it doesn't erase

the evidence that points to consciousness as well as unconsciousness in

each individual. And the depth of the individual unconscious is not

divorced from the collective shadow. So there is a Nazi in your "self"

as well.

Is what's true for your Shadow true for my

Shadow?

Personal shadow is a subset of the universal shadow as is the

collective shadow of any given culture.

Is qua IS?

Is for you?

Try reading some more Jung and perhaps the answer will come to you.

Or, is Jung not equal to wikipedia for depth in terms of the human

psyche?

Happy Birthday, CG

[Guest guest]

 

Each of us has a Nazi residing within ready to

act when the orders are given.

 

Not all of us. Some of us toiled and troubled ourselves

clearing our shadow of our inner Nazis and are no longer "good

Germans..."

 

As for this discourse it really has taken at times a

seemingly "self-defensive" tone on the part of some who should buy the

book and critique the book within the framework of the Jungian theory

applied to the matter of "predatory behaviors" or simply not comment

any further although if they do I would appreciate their emailing me

with a list of their books and publications so I can add them to a

growing "Dumpster Collection of Notable Jungians."

Are you requesting my silence?  I apologize for not being as good as .

.. . Enjoy CG's birthday.

[Guest guest]

I definitely was not referring to you. You can comment all you want.

Each of us has a Nazi residing within ready to act when the orders are given.

Not all of us. Some of us toiled and troubled ourselves clearing our shadow of our inner Nazis and are no longer "good Germans..."

As for this discourse it really has taken at times a seemingly "self-defensive" tone on the part of some who should buy the book and critique the book within the framework of the Jungian theory applied to the matter of "predatory behaviors" or simply not comment any further although if they do I would appreciate their emailing me with a list of their books and publications so I can add them to a growing "Dumpster Collection of Notable Jungians." Are you requesting my silence? I apologize for not being as good as . . . Enjoy CG's birthday.

[Guest guest]

 

Trying again

 

I never met `America' ... what's she like?

I've met her and she is as conflicted as any person I have ever met.

I wonder if you regard all other gradients as `conflicted'.

I also wonder if you regard all samples within a statistical population

as `conflicted' vis-a-vis a statistical average.

I could care less about statistics, gradients, averages and so on.  I

return to the the question you posed " what is she like? "   Now given

that there is an America (or is this the focal point of your energized

response?) and that this " America " is located in time and place and

populated by individuals who are " conflicted, " America is conflicted. 

This shows up in voting patterns, religious factionalism and

interpersonal relationships.   

That said, this holds true for any

geo-political state.

I just can't help but to experience this gratuitous silliness as

anything but.

Statistical samples can't `think' ... nor do they -- for me -- manifest

anything that I don't project onto them.

What do you find silly?Duh ... for the reasons stated.Statical samples, averages, and collectives can NOT do what individuals can.Collectives don't `think' or `feel' or experience `conflict' the way individuals do.

When people use singular verbs with collective nouns they get called on violations of language.  Yet when gramatical rules are honored while constructing nonsensical sentences the person who crafts the non-sense is typically left alone.

Groups do NOT `think', or `feel' or experience `conflicts of conscience' they way that individuals can and do.The rules of grammar do not preclude the crafting of semantically daft assertions.

`America' IS an abstraction to which any number of human-like traits can be projected, attributed, and/or ascribed.Such expressions may hold as metaphor and/or figurative language, but fail abysmally as anything literal or accessible through empirical evaluation.

Would you have us muddle together all the individuals residing

in

the Americas

as if they were a gang of gang stalkers?

Well, when we are in a collective and we have identified with that

collective (America right or wrong) there is a tendency to be gripped

with the collective will which leads one to do/say what normally would

not be done or said. 

 

Each of us has a Nazi residing within ready to

act when the orders are given.

As well as an Iconoclast at the ready to knock every would be

`authority' off his or her pedestal before, while, or after giving

orders.

Did your inner Nazi just assert with authority that each of us resembles

you in this regard?

I don't assert with authority, I made a comment - there is a

difference.  If you want certainty and authority, you will have to look

outside the human race and their institutions and statistics.  Any

holding to " certainty " is a delusional expression of mana.   

Of course

you " know " this as a student of Jung's work.  

As for others resembling

me,  I am a unique individual (or so I think).   

That said, I am not

isolated and share conscious and unconscious contents with the

collective.  

This is what Jung talks about when following the trail of

the human psyche.   

Archetypes of polarities - good and evil within each

and everyone of us.  

We can deny until we turn purple, it doesn't erase

the evidence that points to consciousness as well as unconsciousness in

each individual.   

And the depth of the individual unconscious is not

divorced from the collective shadow.  So there is a Nazi in your " self "

as well. 

Is what's true for your Shadow true for my

Shadow?

Personal shadow is a subset of the universal shadow as is the

collective shadow of any given culture.

Is qua IS?

Is for you?

Try reading some more Jung and perhaps the answer will come to you. 

My issue is not with Jung.  My issue is with sloppy language and phenomena related to the Sapir-Whorf-Korzybskihypothesis and any number of fallacies of cognition, and fallacies of narration.

Rhetoric and polemics seem at issue here.http://www.nobeliefs.com/Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski.htm 

Or, is Jung not equal to wikipedia for depth in terms of the human

psyche?Jung is a red herring in this case, as I suspect you are sufficiently aware.Jung is not around to prevent flakes from painting by numbers with his terminology, precepts, or concepts.

To use the colors of a grandmaster does not magically make one's finger paintings masterpieces anymore than forming grammatically well-formed sentences entails that such sentences convey semantically well-formed ideas.

I can accept America qua `America' as a projection screen upon which anybody can project ANYTHING.I am not so daft as to behold such projections and attributions as anything but.Sincerely,

  Gene

[Guest guest]

all,I guess today I will get over my hesitation to weigh in.The one remarkable feature I note is the contrast between Alice's contribution of her, to me, life's worth of insight, with, the description from experience and interpretation of this experience of gang stalking. In another sense, this is what this long-standing email list has come to. " The brighter the light... "

***,I'm reminded in reading your thoughts here of how individuals come to their own vocabularies. This would be apart from intersubjective agreement about what certainly exists, and, about how more than a single person comes together to be able to conceptualize and articulate how such certain existing " stuffs " can be known by anybody.

But, this would be a field some other group would find interesting, and, then, worth their while to go about becoming very suspicious of the merely personal cum subjective cum anti-conventional conceptions, bastardized from the good Doctor, or otherwise conjured.

Obviously, this has never been of (hardly) any interest to most persons, past and present, on Jung-Fire and on its antecedents.Still, I would argue that the deployment of " collective " in the psychological context given by Jung is--at least--a conception for which anybody who has read Jung and also read in the literature, could easily be suspicious about. In fact, to understand what Jung meant is per force to be suspicious about this conception.

In other words, if you don't what is wrong with it, and what are the obvious pressures created by close examination of the concept of Collective Unconscious, then I really would not be able to ascertain whether such a person has--in fact--closely examined this concept and its conceptual foundations. Hey, on the other hand, credit gained for being a good consumer!

However, as I've implied, this group has never lit upon the concepts of Analytic Psychology for the purpose of critique, especially in the direction of their viability with respect to actual phenomena, and, crucially, how this phenomena is known to exist (as in: how do I know?)

Oh, likewise with gang stalking, for which the victim's report is necessarily irrelevant to a determination of the veracity of the same.Thus: " Well, when we are in a collective and we have identified with that

collective (America right or wrong) there is a tendency to be gripped

with the collective will which leads one to do/say what normally would

not be done or said.  Each of us has a Nazi residing within ready to

act when the orders are given. " takes a concept one is ignorant about, and runs with this ignorance. I literally have no idea what 'collective will' refers to. Lacking this understanding, I cannot say whether such a thing actually exists. Explain it to me in cognitive terms--how such a phenomena works. How it should then manipulate intentionality and speech modules is, I would bet, well beyond the expertise of those who assert by implication as much.

***Ahh, but Jungians live in a Jungian world, right? About anybody neither in it or of it, we wouldn't have a Jungian take, right? Certainly Jung himself did not, and, alas, he was basically oblivious to whether, or not, his folk psychological musings could be normative. After all, he plowed through several revolutions in psychology as if they did not exist. Then he died, a 20th century figure beholden to a 19th century meta-psychology.

The irony of course is that it may well be that to individuate is, at the end of the day, to become *absolutely* based in reality. So to reckon there is a Nazi in each of us, is low absurdity. It's not Jungian and isn't sensible.

regards,

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)

Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured

Visit Your Group |

Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use

|

Unsubscribe

[Guest guest]

Some needed clarification about terms as per C.G. Jung's published

writings:

"Consciousness does not create itself - it wells up from unknow

depths. . . It is like a child that is born daily out of the primordial

womb of the unconscious . . . It is not onlyy influenced by the

unconscious but continually emerges out of it in the form of numberless

sponateous ideas and sudden flashes of thought." CW 11 paragraph 935

"The conscious personality is a more or less arbitrary segment of the

collective psyche. It consists in a sum of psychic factors that are

felt to be personal." CW 7 paragraph 244

"the thinking function as a whole can have a collective quality when it

possesses general validity and accords with the laws of logic." CW 6

paragraph 244

"The collective unconscious contains the whole spiritual heritage of

mankind's evolution, born anew in the brain structure of every

individual." CW 8 paragraph 342

I would like to recommend CW 9i The Archetypes and the Collective

Unconscious as well as CW 14 Mysterium Coniunctionis as

good sources for anyone interested in Jung's understandings of these

critical terms.

Happy birthday, CG Jung

[Guest guest]

, all,I'm going to latch onto just one quote in your beautiful appeal to fragments of somebody's' authority. And, I do this while recognizing I haven't offered my own argument.

" The collective unconscious contains the whole spiritual heritage of

mankind's evolution, born anew in the brain structure of every

individual. " CW 8 paragraph 342This is very pretty. However, do you not see for yourself it is question begging?Let me help you out. What does Dr. Jung mean by:

HeritageMankind's evolutionBorn anewBrain structure???Amazingly, you have risen to the challenge by repeating the problem. Which is to say, you've mongered 'august words' which presumably are aspects of a conceptualization, yet, at the same time, because the serious questions so begged don't seem to be noticed by you, what you've done is fleshed out your own ignorance by appealing to shards from Dr. Jung.

Jeezum, just tell me straight away how the heritage comes to be born in the brain  structure--umm, once you've defined " brain structure, " " born, " and " heritage. " As I said before, there is no intelligent way with which to justify an uncritical comprehensive acceptance of *anything.* Yes, the sun shall rise tomorrow, but, still, when you think about it...

regards,

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)

Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured

Visit Your Group |

Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use

|

Unsubscribe