Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Greg, Don't all of you who lay it on Dan, realize you become the very thing you abhor. I like Anne Coulter. She is attractive and has a razor sharp mind that few can keep up with. I can say that w/o worrying if I am falling off the 'accepted politically correct' bandwagon. Dan has come to his ideas through his experience and has as much right to them as the sanctimonious opposition. But then Dan can speak for himself. That is very unfair to compare Anne to Hitler. Whatever Dan says is always said even keel never emotional like his responses from others. Betty Dan's misogyny Dan, Calling Anne Coulter "wise" is like calling Hitler compassionate. Once again you give us all pause to reflect on our own shadows. I'll try not to project mine onto you as I am often prone to do. But I hope you'll pick up the other side of the Mysterium and hang on tight....eventually. BTW, invoking Jung to your cause is, again, off the mark IMO. Read the real context of his words....rather than clinging to the literal with a death grip. I wonder if your malady is karmic Dan. Have you ever had any past life memories of witch burning? That would seem to serve two agreeable themes for you... disdain for the legitimate rights of half of our species AND the "delight" of public execution. Think about it! "Falling" in love might be good for you Dan. I hope you'll have an open mind when She crosses your path. You seem to be crying out for a genuine encounter with the Feminine. Jung DID know that territory. Perhaps, for you, she looks like Anne Coulter. God bless Dan. Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Greg Rieke wrote: Dear Greg, Dan, Calling Anne Coulter "wise" is like calling Hitler compassionate. Hitler may have indeed been compassionate - these brutal sentimentalist types notoriously are. But compassion is not the political virtue (by which here I mean the virtue most necessary for ruling) - prudence is. I'd much rather be ruled by Churchill than by Mother Theresa, wouldn't you? It's no help to mean well if things go to hell. Once again you give us all pause to reflect on our own shadows. I'll try not to project mine onto you as I am often prone to do. But I hope you'll pick up the other side of the Mysterium and hang on tight....eventually. BTW, invoking Jung to your cause is, again, off the mark IMO. Read the real context of his words....rather than clinging to the literal with a death grip. Jung says what he says. I don't think, for example, that you can explain away Jung's remarks re: capital punishment by appeal to context. Seems quite clear to me. But if you can show that his words mean something other than their plain sense, I'm listening. Many of the political remarks that Jung makes that cause such consternation when people are confronted with them (sorry for terrible sentence, but must hurry) are things that Jung said for publication in the popular press - that is, things that he thought were appropriate for the many to hear. On the other hand, many of his remarks in entre nous seminars are pretty shocking, too. I wonder if your malady is karmic Dan. Have you ever had any past life memories of witch burning? I have two past life memories. In one, I am a very old man, close to death, in a wheelchair and waiting to be taken somewhere by my youngest son, a portly and prosperous middle-aged business man. I am fairly wealthy myself. There is a sense that I am near the end of my life. I will not be returning home again. The year is 1927, and I am eighty-six years old. Number two: I am a young man of about twenty-four or twenty-five, not very bright (IQ in 70's or low 80's, I should think), but with a certain mechanical aptitude. I live with my parents in the midwest, perhaps Iowa or Nebraska, and work in a garage. It is 1954. A friend of the family has sold me a used car, a 1953 or 1954 Chevrolet, cheap, in part as a favor to me and my parents. I hotrod the car (not easy with a stovebolt six, but these things are relative) and drive it beyond its capacities. One night I take a left hand curve too fast and go off the road and into the woods, crashing the car and killing myself. Those are my only past life memories. That would seem to serve two agreeable themes for you... disdain for the legitimate rights of half of our species The whole modern notion of universal human rights is deeply problematic. As a myth it has its limitations, to say the least. To my mind, it is dangerous. With respect to voting, what one wants "ideally" is to extend the franchise to those fit to deliberate and choose, and to deny it to those not so fit (the idea that everyone has a natural right to go into a booth and vote his or her prejudices - just because - is to my mind utterly arbitrary and silly). That is, one wants to eliminate both false positives and false negatives. In real life, how do you do that? One way might be to require a test, but, again, how do you do that? The logistical and political implications are daunting. In practice, some rough-and-ready but sensible limitations will probably have to do. At the beginning of the American regime, the idea was that certain men of property were fit to choose the men who would choose the men who would make the laws (somewhat over-simplified, I know). That seems to me not so bad. If you don't like excluding women from the franchise, then perhaps we could say that both men and women who meet a certain property qualification should have the franchise (see? - I am easy to get along with). What we don't want is what we are perilously close to having - having those that frankly termed "the rabble" in the driver's seat (for what happens when the unfit drive, see my past life above). AND the "delight" of public execution. Think about it! I have thought about it. There was a time when I was a good liberal with all the conventional viewpoints. Thinking and reading have changed my mind on many issues. One of the authors helping to effect this change was Jung. "Falling" in love might be good for you Dan. I hope you'll have an open mind when She crosses your path. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt multiple times. Because I am slightly smarter this go-round, I have been mostly able to jerk the wheel back in time - a few fender benders, but no life-threatening crashes :-). You seem to be crying out for a genuine encounter with the Feminine. Jung DID know that territory. Yes, he did. That (among other reasons) is why, with due respect, I trust him more than I trust you as a thinker and a guide. best, Dan Perhaps, for you, she looks like Anne Coulter. God bless Dan. Greg _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 betty hill wrote: Dear Betty, Thank you for defending me. I do try to keep my emotions in check. Best, dan Greg, Don't all of you who lay it on Dan, realize you become the very thing you abhor. I like Anne Coulter. She is attractive and has a razor sharp mind that few can keep up with. I can say that w/o worrying if I am falling off the 'accepted politically correct' bandwagon. Dan has come to his ideas through his experience and has as much right to them as the sanctimonious opposition. But then Dan can speak for himself. That is very unfair to compare Anne to Hitler. Whatever Dan says is always said even keel never emotional like his responses from others. Betty Dan's misogyny Dan, Calling Anne Coulter "wise" is like calling Hitler compassionate. Once again you give us all pause to reflect on our own shadows. I'll try not to project mine onto you as I am often prone to do. But I hope you'll pick up the other side of the Mysterium and hang on tight....eventually. BTW, invoking Jung to your cause is, again, off the mark IMO. Read the real context of his words....rather than clinging to the literal with a death grip. I wonder if your malady is karmic Dan. Have you ever had any past life memories of witch burning? That would seem to serve two agreeable themes for you... disdain for the legitimate rights of half of our species AND the "delight" of public execution. Think about it! "Falling" in love might be good for you Dan. I hope you'll have an open mind when She crosses your path. You seem to be crying out for a genuine encounter with the Feminine. Jung DID know that territory. Perhaps, for you, she looks like Anne Coulter. God bless Dan. Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 I think we are allowed to reply honestly to whatever anyone posts on this list.I do agree with Voltaire and always have. Lists are a lot more fun that way, so is life. I do not become what I abhor, by the grace of G-d. ( I do not abhor nor hate, purely by grace) But I amend my statement that my shadow doesn't hate. I really couldn't love with such a passion, if that were true. But I never said I didn't know hate in the past. I knew it well in one person. And I disliked quite a number,of people and things once.... of which I am also not proud. Sometimes it is hard to remember the opposites within which we prefer not to notice. In the case of my many year hatred as only an adolescent can hate, I am now fortunately or unfortunately a wiser aged person. I learned how little I actually knew of what was going on before my eyes, but I couldn't see then. I have apologized when ever I think of him now, dead, but very much still here.We have made our peace. We look with our own eyes, which with the experiences we have made, often colors our so called logical thought. That is universal. So is the fact that we believe our opinion is the "right" one, until finally grace has its way and we realize "right and 'wrong" are judgments we are in no position to make since we actually do not know the whole truth. Nor our bias.We will have to struggle with the relative while on this earth. It is so hard to let go of the black/white thinking which makes us comfortable. Alice always impressed me when she tried to tell me this is not an either/or world, but a "both/and world. I now understand what she means, but the world and the Divine had a hard time bringing me around. I don't see the "opposition" "sanctimonious" here. It is honest, and has nothing to do with sanity or the sacred. It is purely personal opinion. On the other hand maybe we need a bit of sanctity here, but sanctity would not call anything or anyone names, nor need to defend anything....in fact sanctity never judges.As for politically correct, I for one was here( on earth) long before that became a hallmark for judging, and my personal opinion is, sadly for some, mostly what is now called "tree hugging". We all, especially we women seem to want to protect anyone here who raises feathers. A noble sentiment, but i don't think the "best defense is a good offense" But mothers will be mothers for life, it seems. I hope that what I express as personal opinion does not send anyone into a frenzy, but knowing me as I so, I imagine that is a fond expectation. As personal opinion, I do not suggest shooting Anne Coulter at all, nor silencing her, which she would deem worse, but changing the channel or station does the trick. What I personally think of her opinion is my opinion, and at least as well backed by fact. Dan is a welcome member of this fire. While we disagree on certain subjects ( the Middle Ages, democracy or representational government, and now women) he is a lovable guy to me.( I love and adore my husband also, but I don't agree with everything he says either, nor remain silent) Let's get back to respecting our differences as well as our attachment to Jung. For so long I felt I was playing word games on the lists, trying how to say what I thought without being obnoxious or "ad homenem-ing".( never was successful) I give up. Hard as it is to shut myself up, I find that at least saves my integrity. I try I really do, not to hurt anyone's feelings, but damn that is hard when we get on sensitive subjects, isn't it?( Remember as the introvert Gwynne is, I also am, and I speak to almost no one but family, except on the net. I no longer work, belong to committees,go to church or have close friends within miles. So except for the hairdresser and various doctors I go out to walk the dog or go to dinner in the winter. So this, right here, is where I express myself...not always wisely. One can love without total agreement on every facet of life...in fact in being very different. Toni Dan's misogyny Dan, Calling Anne Coulter "wise" is like calling Hitler compassionate. Once again you give us all pause to reflect on our own shadows. I'll try not to project mine onto you as I am often prone to do. But I hope you'll pick up the other side of the Mysterium and hang on tight....eventually. BTW, invoking Jung to your cause is, again, off the mark IMO. Read the real context of his words....rather than clinging to the literal with a death grip. I wonder if your malady is karmic Dan. Have you ever had any past life memories of witch burning? That would seem to serve two agreeable themes for you... disdain for the legitimate rights of half of our species AND the "delight" of public execution. Think about it! "Falling" in love might be good for you Dan. I hope you'll have an open mind when She crosses your path. You seem to be crying out for a genuine encounter with the Feminine. Jung DID know that territory. Perhaps, for you, she looks like Anne Coulter. God bless Dan. Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 WARNING TO THOSE OF YOU WHO HATE POLITICS ON JUNGFIRE. DELETE NOW AND MOVE ON YOU'LL BE HAPPIER FOR IT.... Betty wrote: >Don't all of you who lay it on Dan, all of me? >realize you become the very thing you abhor. and what is that Betty? Who is holding up the mirror to whom here? >I like Anne Coulter. She is attractive and has a razor sharp mind >that few can keep up with. I can say that w/o worrying if I am >falling off the 'accepted politically correct' bandwagon. Good for you. Its a free country afterall. She is attractive and smart, on that we agree. But whether one would want to " keep up " with such an intellect is another question altogether. She has such trouble connecting her head with her heart...or so it seems to me. Not connected (in the least) to the heiros gamos as far as I can see. Seems to have a very negative, even angry animus so much of the time. No worry about political correctness though (at least with me). I am often politically " incorrect " to be sure. I don't claim to be right (as Anne does, almost without exception) and in fact sometimes change my perspective... by what is said here on JF. >Dan has come to his ideas through his experience and has as much >right to them as the sanctimonious opposition. Sure Dan has experienced life uniquely, as have we all Betty, myself included. I regret appearing sanctimonious to you. Perhaps that is another of the MANY faults I can work on. Thanks for pointing that out for me. But I have found, over several years, that Dan enjoys setting off little verbal bombs and then waiting for the predictable reaction to follow. I just responded to him (as you did to me) stating how I thought he was out of step. It is your right to disagree and to defend him, as others have done before. Dan's views about what Jung said and meant are, I find, often at odds with with either the letter and/or the spirit of his life's work. And a big part of what we do here is to talk about Jung and his ideas. It is not meant to be monolithic nor dogmatic IMO. It is not about Dan per se, but about Dan's ideas of what Jung meant and about his praise of Anne Coulter, whom I see quite differently too. >But then Dan can speak for himself. Yes, and as usual, he did already, without the defenses he often evokes from others who are impressed by his politeness, if not his logic or judgement about what Jung was talking about for many decades of the last century. >That is very unfair to compare Anne to Hitler. You misread my analogy. I objected to Dan's suggestion that Anne is " wise " (please reread the post to which I had responded). To me, wisdom operates in harmony with power and love drives. Anne seems to tilt heavily toward the power extreme, often lacking the correctives of either wisdom or love. But she most certainly has intellect (thinking function). Very sensible indeed, especially for the " haves " for whom she usually speaks. I usually tend not to change channels whenever she is on. I was not comparing her to Hitler as you assert, but objecting to her being characterized as " wise " something that even Pythagoras, the first philosopher, never claimed for himself. But the tendency of power dominance (over wisdom and love), in general, seems to be the direction " conservatives " in our country so often want to take us (usually quite " sanctimoniously " ), on a variety of issues: from going to war on false pretenses, to ignoring the environmental crisis the Earth is now experiencing, to massive political corruption at the highest levels, to encroachment into personal privacy in the name of fear mongering, to turning back the clock on a number of social issues about which their orthodox moral sensibilities are offended. And that tendency, TO ME, is not the solution to the many enormous problems facing our world right now, let alone of our nation. It takes the opposite direction we need to go - IMO. But I'll spend more time listening to Anne, since you assert as does Dan, that she is not what I see/hear her to be. Again, I don't wish to make this list into a political discussion group, since I know that rankles some of our members to no end. >Whatever Dan says is always said even keel never emotional like his >responses from others. Yes, I agree, Dan is polite in expressing his sometimes peculiar views. Dan can state, with the most cool, clear language the most outrageous notions, for which he often receives the hoped-for response of those who wish to take him up. But what he says also offends people, like me, who find it odd (to say the least) to extol the virtues of withdrawing voting and property rights for women and delighting in the public spectacle of death penalty. Such statements deserve a response, I believe, so I hope you're not suggesting that I refrain from stating a contrary POV Betty. And however emotion you read into my responses, I am not " screaming " when I write them. It is you who read/hear them at a higher decible. I am only one voice among many here as you are and Dan and each of us here around the fire. Pass the marshmellows. Greg _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 WARNING TO THE POLITICALLY SENSITIVE!! MORE POLITICAL DIATRIBES FOLLOW. FAST FORWARD.... OR DELETE IF NECESSARY. Dan wrote: >Hitler may have indeed been compassionate - these brutal >sentimentalist types notoriously are. Really? For which of the 4 million jews and tens of millions of others who were recipients of his unusual compassion do you speak Dan? >But compassion is not the political virtue (by which here I mean the >virtue most necessary for ruling) - prudence is. I have found it nearly impossible for one taught in the " might makes right " political POV to escape from it easily or quickly. But do you speak out of moral rectitude or expedience (ala Machievelli school)? It is often difficult to know this from your statements Dan. >I'd much rather be ruled by Churchill than by Mother Theresa, >wouldn't you? It's no help to mean well if things go to hell. Yes they each have their place. Perhaps we'll live to see the day when Churchillian pragmatism CAN be replaced by the like of MT. But probably not in our lifetime. But that is what the returning feminization of politics may hold in store. I hope it comes soon enough to save our planet from the excesses of patriarchy you so trumpet as virtue. >Jung says what he says. I don't think, for example, that you can >explain away Jung's remarks re: capital punishment by appeal to >context. Seems quite clear to me. Yes Dan, it probably does. I see religious fundamentalists as cock sure of their interpretations of Biblical verses, taken out of context, as you are about some of Jung's ideas and meanings. But, as Gershwin said.... " it ain't necessarily so. " > But if you can show that his words mean something other than their > plain sense, I'm listening. Many of the political remarks that Jung > makes that cause such consternation when people are confronted with > them (sorry for terrible sentence, but must hurry) are things that > Jung said for publication in the popular press - that is, things > that he thought were appropriate for the many to hear. It seems to be your mission to assert these little known and " out of context " justifications of a certain right-wing agenda Dan (along with your idea that Jung shared this innate political conservatism) to continually bring to our attention, whether true or not. Even if true, which I doubt, what purpose do they serve? Perhaps you throw the baby out with the bathwater. >On the other hand, many of his remarks in entre nous seminars are >pretty shocking, too. Jung made a career out of " shocking " people, especially those who misunderstood what he was really saying. I'm not saying I do, but observing that, in matters of the psychic structure of humanity, Jung broke new ground. But he did spend much time focused on the gnostics, the heretics, the alchemists and those who were out of favor in centuries past. Many millions have still not caught up to him in this domain, though his influence seems to be growing by the decade. But his main contribution was in psychology, not politics. I don't think he ever claimed to be politician. He certainly analyzed many of them. And has written at length about their motivations and psycho-histories. <I have two past life memories..... I appreciate your sharing those. I'm interested in hearing what meaning and impact these memories might have for you (now). I regret that I have no such clarity of memory of any past lives. I hope you do something with them Dan. I don't claim any gifts in deciphering their meaning nor would I presume to do so. >The whole modern notion of universal human rights is deeply >problematic. As a myth it has its limitations, to say the least. To >my mind, it is dangerous. The same could be said of those deeply convicted Southerners in our own country whose notions of slavery were drummed from the national psyche only after 600,000 were killed during our Civil War. I obviously will not attempt to speak for the many women in our group, but only myself here. But I have no problem with women's voting rights and even find it incredible to imagine the otherwise writers of our constitution deprived not only slaves but the other half of the species when they wrote our founding document. This is yet another reason the constitution, our national dogma, be flexible and read rigidly as the Scallia, Borks and Alitos among us are bound to do. IMO, it is a living, breathing document, not a changeless icon of an age we have thankfully left behind - often amidst massive bloodshed and wasted resources. >With respect to voting, what one wants " ideally " is to extend the franchise to those fit to deliberate and choose, and to deny it to those not so fit (the idea that everyone has a natural right to go into a booth and vote his or her prejudices - just because - is to my mind utterly arbitrary and silly). Would you rather have the Congress, the courts, the Bush Admin decide who is " fit " Dan? Who should, IYO, be excluded outright from the privilege to vote, other than those are now excluded by law? > If you don't like excluding women from the franchise, then perhaps > we could say that both men and women who meet a certain property > qualification should have the franchise (see? - I am easy to get > along with). Oh, so very agreeable. I'm sure you could easily eliminate women from the franchise. Far easier to do so if you're a white man. How about excluding those who own property, leaving it up to the " have nots " among us? What a novel idea. That would certainly force some social justice wouldn't it? As soon as you become a " have " you lose your voting rights. What an idea! Probably makes as much sense than the one you propose. What about property ownership uniquely qualifies one with proper governing qualities? What qualifications do those who inherit property have for guiding the life of the nation anyway? They tend to be motivated only to perpetuate of a system that has put them in control (again power, without love or wisdom). Many wars have been fought over this notion of course. But then, you may assert the divine right of kings makes good sense and that Democracy itself is foolish. You live in the wrong century Dan! Must be painful to you > What we don't want is what we are perilously close to having - > having those that frankly termed " the rabble " in the > driver's seat (for what happens when the unfit drive, see my past > life above). No, we mustn't have the unwashed riffraff in the " driver's seat " Dan. We have had the likes of es, Kennedy and Roosevelt in the presidency. And a few have been good presidents. And we have also had some of the unwashed there too, , Lincoln, Truman, Clinton, and some others. Not all bad. Hard to generalize on this one. But perhaps you prefer our present " richocracy, " governed only by those with special interest agendas and adequate payola when the votes are taken. It doesn't seem to be working for us very well. In any case, we have exactly the leadership we deserve, most unfortunately. " The best government money can buy, " as Will said. > One of the authors helping to effect this change was Jung. Keep reading Dan....lege, lege, lege. > Jung DID know that territory. Yes, he did. That (among other reasons) is why, with due respect, I trust him more than I trust you as a thinker and a guide. It is so interesting how we can read the same words and yet take such different meaning from them. Fascinating. No offense taken. Jung is a much better guide than I'll ever be; one that we most definately agree on Dan. That is for sure. He seems to guide us as qw project our own meaning onto him.... Greg _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Greg, I sometimes think Dan expresses the extreme for dramatic affect, although I'm sure he stands by the literal. He believes it but not quite to the extent he is expressing.e.g. public executions, I think he means support for the death penalty. and withdrawing the vote frome women means cleanup voter fraud. That is the way I read him. There is someone who has a mind as sharp as Anne's and that is Hitchens. Betty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 "I don't see the "opposition" "sanctimonious" here." I'll put it this way. the politically correct think they have the higher ground "We all, especially we women seem to want to protect anyone here who raises feathers" I personally want to protect the under dog, and sometimes take the side of the one who raises feathers. "Let's get back to respecting our differences as well as our attachment to Jung." That is why political differences should not cause an uproar, as if a conservative is the devil, himself. I no longer work, belong to committees,go to church or have close friends within miles. So except for the hairdresser and various doctors I go out to walk the dog or go to dinner in the winter. So this, right here, is where I express myself...not always wisely. The above expresses my life, also. Don't have a dog to walk. Have a cat, I talk to. Betty From: vienna19311 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 >There is someone who has a mind as sharp as Anne's and that is > Hitchens. Dear Betty, Good, I'll be looking for him. Is he a radical reactionary like she is?....smart, but no heart..... heehee Greg _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 No Greg, He is English but lives here and he is one conservative liberals like. Sometimes he is on s Hard Ball show. He can be found on the web. Might still work or worked for Vanity Fair. Re: Dan's misogyny >There is someone who has a mind as sharp as Anne's and that is > Hitchens. Dear Betty, Good, I'll be looking for him. Is he a radical reactionary like she is?....smart, but no heart..... heehee Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Dear Greg, Worse in some ways. And not as pretty. Toni You know I have a theory about reactionaries. They are scared as hell.. about everything, but particularly what they have they might lose. Re: Dan's misogyny > > > > >>There is someone who has a mind as sharp as Anne's and that is >> > Hitchens. > > Dear Betty, > > Good, I'll be looking for him. Is he a radical reactionary like she > is?....smart, but no heart..... > > heehee > > Greg > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 -- Dear TOni, a thoughty popped to mind while reading what you wrote. " greed is a powerful motivator (( empirical 'truth' )) and greed is one of the three sources of sin ((paraphrased Buddha)) seems like 'fear of losing what you already have' can be traced to greed / attachment. peace, tracy - In JUNG-FIRE , " vienna19311 " <Vienna19311@v...> wrote: > > Dear Greg, > > Worse in some ways. And not as pretty. > > Toni > You know I have a theory about reactionaries. They are scared as hell.. > about everything, but particularly what they have they might lose. > > Re: Dan's misogyny > > > > > > > > > > > >>There is someone who has a mind as sharp as Anne's and that is > >> > Hitchens. > > > > Dear Betty, > > > > Good, I'll be looking for him. Is he a radical reactionary like she > > is?....smart, but no heart..... > > > > heehee > > > > Greg > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 Dan writes: > Jung says what he says. I don't think, for example, that you can explain > away Jung's remarks re: capital punishment by appeal to context. Seems > quite clear to me. But if you can show that his words mean something > other than their plain sense, I'm listenin Jung later changed his views on capital punishment as he reflected more on the workings of the shadow. Eventually he was against it because it would be killing off the shadow. Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 Dear Carol, you wrote: > > Jung later changed his views on capital punishment as he reflected more on > the workings of the shadow. Eventually he was against it because it would be > killing off the shadow. Do you have an exact quote for this? Dan, I would also be grateful if you would provide a quote of Jung on capital punishment, as I remember reading the passage to which you refer but cannot now find it. I was under the impression, although more than willing to be corrected, that Jung avoided being drawn into expressing a purely personal opinion one way or the other about capital punishment, but that he did say that it appeared to be a collective psychological necessity for justice to be seen to be done (which led me to agree with Dan's view that he probably was more in favour of it than not). fa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 > Dear Carol, you wrote: >> >> Jung later changed his views on capital punishment as he reflected more >> on >> the workings of the shadow. Eventually he was against it because it would > be >> killing off the shadow. > > Do you have an exact quote for this? Dan, I would also be grateful if you > would provide a quote of Jung on capital punishment, as I remember reading > the passage to which you refer but cannot now find it. I was under the > impression, although more than willing to be corrected, that Jung avoided > being drawn into expressing a purely personal opinion one way or the other > about capital punishment, but that he did say that it appeared to be a > collective psychological necessity for justice to be seen to be done > (which > led me to agree with Dan's view that he probably was more in favour of it > than not). > > fa pha, Jung writes about capital punishment in Nietzsche's Zarathustra. His later comments on the subject were told to me by a Jungian analyst who learned them in conversations with Jung's grandson and also with von Franz. Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 Dear Betty, I do think that public hanging were salutary. As far as the franchise is concerned, I am not worried about fraud so much as I am about extending the franchise only to those fit by nature, habit and upbringing to hold it. Best, Dan > > > Date: 2006/01/22 Sun PM 06:00:05 EST > To: <JUNG-FIRE > > Subject: Re: Dan's misogyny > > Greg, > I sometimes think Dan expresses the extreme for dramatic affect, although I'm sure he stands by the literal. He believes it but not quite to the extent he is expressing.e.g. public executions, I think he means support for the death penalty. and withdrawing the vote frome women means cleanup voter fraud. That is the way I read him. > There is someone who has a mind as sharp as Anne's and that is Hitchens. > Betty > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 Dear Greg, Regarding your headline, I wonder how anyone who was interested in psychology could hate politics. You can't have one, you can't have none, you can't have one without the other (Chairman of the Board). > > >Hitler may have indeed been compassionate - these brutal >sentimentalist types notoriously are. > > Really? For which of the 4 million jews and tens of millions of others who were recipients of his unusual compassion do you speak Dan? Now. > > >But compassion is not the political virtue (by which here I mean the > >virtue most necessary for ruling) - prudence is. > > I have found it nearly impossible for one taught in the " might >makes right " political POV to escape from it easily or quickly. I presume that you do not mean to imply that I am of this school. > But do you speak out of moral rectitude or expedience (ala >Machievelli school)? It is often difficult to know this from your >statements Dan. Moral rectitude but not necessarily Christian or Buddhist moral rectitude, Greg. Not " universalist " moral rectitude. Perhaps moral rectitude is helping your friends and harming your enemies. Perhaps it is loyalty to your own. I can't help but notice, too, that Aristotle seems to praise magnanimity more highly than he does justice - justice comes off for A as a more pedestrian virtue than it does for us. Just a thought. > > >I'd much rather be ruled by Churchill than by Mother Theresa, >wouldn't you? It's no help to mean well if things go to hell. > > Yes they each have their place. Perhaps we'll live to see the day when Churchillian pragmatism CAN be replaced by the like of MT. MT praised the tyrant Hoxha. She was either very naive or simply apolitical - I suspect the latter. An apolitical person is not fit to rule, just as a tone-deaf person is not fit to sing at the Met. > But probably not in our lifetime. But that is what the returning >feminization of politics may hold in store. I hope it comes soon >enough to save our planet from the excesses of patriarchy you so >trumpet as virtue. What you call the excesses of masculinity I would call the excesses of modernity. And I think that modernity is very feminine, insofar as it is so preoccupied with eliminating suffering and relieving man's estate. Masculinity has been in retreat for five hundred years. The " masculine " conquest of nature has been in large part in fact for a feminine purpose. It was also very hybristic, such that we are going to pay for it - perhaps as a result of global warming. The feminine " Mother Earth, " who is most capable of taking care of herself, tahnk you very much, may just brush a few billion of us off. Perhaps we will learn something. > > >Jung says what he says. I don't think, for example, that you can > >explain away Jung's remarks re: capital punishment by appeal to > >context. Seems quite clear to me. > > Yes Dan, it probably does. I see religious fundamentalists as >cock sure of their interpretations of Biblical verses, taken out of >context, as you are about some of Jung's ideas and meanings. But, >as Gershwin said.... " it ain't necessarily so. " Fine - let's hear your alternative intepretation. For it seems to me that the reader who claims that an author means the opposite of what he says takes the burden of proof upon himself. > > > But if you can show that his words mean something other than their > plain sense, I'm listening. Many of the political remarks that Jung > makes that cause such consternation when people are confronted with > them (sorry for terrible sentence, but must hurry) are things that > Jung said for publication in the popular press - that is, things > > that he thought were appropriate for the many to hear. > > It seems to be your mission to assert these little known and " out >of context " justifications of a certain right-wing agenda Dan (along with your idea that Jung shared this innate political conservatism) I doubt that any political teaching is innate - Jung's political views were a function of what he had learned about human nature. What you may not know, although I think I have told you, is that my own views were developed in part as a result of reading Jung. He convinced me, I didn't come looking to appropriate him. What you call " a certain right wing agenda " is imo the correct agenda, the needful agenda. If Jung supports it and gives arguments that clarify it, why shouldn't I cite them - especially among Jungians, who on the whole appear to need to learn it more than anyone? If I think something - who cares? If Abraham Lincoln thought the same thing, well that might mean something to someone. Ditto with Jung. Rhetoric matters. > to continually bring to our attention, whether true or not. Even if true, which I doubt, what purpose do they serve? I don't know - to sow doubt among those who need doubt sown? To " turn off " from Jung people who should be turned off? Maybe even to get some people to rethink? Maybe my posts will simply be futile - but they get a reaction, and that must mean something. A reaction can be a prompt to thinking. > Perhaps you throw the baby out with the bathwater. > > >On the other hand, many of his remarks in entre nous seminars are > >pretty shocking, too. > > Jung made a career out of " shocking " people, especially those who >misunderstood what he was really saying. I'm not saying I do, but >observing that, in matters of the psychic structure of humanity, >Jung broke new ground. Did he? I thought that he rediscovered Plato (not that that is a small thing - that alone would suffice to make Jung great). What new ground did he break? > But he did spend much time focused on the gnostics, the heretics, >the alchemists and those who were out of favor in centuries past. >Many millions have still not caught up to him in this domain, Still? Greg, they *never* will. >though his influence seems to be growing by the decade. But his >main contribution was in psychology, not politics. I say, to repeat, that the two cannot be separated. > I don't think he ever claimed to be politician. No he didn't, but he knew that his thought had political consequences, and he was not dead to his political responsibility. >He certainly analyzed many of them. And has written at length >about their motivations and psycho-histories. > > <I have two past life memories..... > > I appreciate your sharing those. I'm interested in hearing what >meaning and impact these memories might have for you (now). I >regret that I have no such clarity of memory of any past lives. I >hope you do something with them Dan. I don't claim any gifts in >deciphering their meaning nor would I presume to do so. They are what they are. The second may have meant (karmically), " You don't like being rich and bright? Let's see how you like poor and stupid, " lol. > > >The whole modern notion of universal human rights is deeply > >problematic. As a myth it has its limitations, to say the least. To >my mind, it is dangerous. > >The same could be said of those deeply convicted Southerners in our >own country whose notions of slavery were drummed from the national >psyche only after 600,000 were killed during our Civil War. Slavery as such will not result in universal tyranny. Slavery will not render the earth utterly unfit for man and beast. Modern notions of universal human rights, on the other hand, have the potential to do so, in my judgment. >I obviously will not attempt to speak for the many women in our >group, but only myself here. But I have no problem with women's >voting rights and even find it incredible to imagine the otherwise >writers of our constitution deprived not only slaves but the other >half of the species when they wrote our founding document. If they hadn't, they would have failed - it's that stone simple. Some were not in fact opposed to slavery, and I imagine few if any were pro- women's suffrage. But even if they had been, they would have had to settle for half a loaf. In thinking about this, it is worth remembering that Jefferson and Paine and the other radicals do not speak for all of the founders. > This is yet another reason the constitution, our national dogma, >be flexible and read rigidly as the Scallia, Borks and Alitos among >us are bound to do. IMO, it is a living, breathing document, If you see documents breathing, you have bigger problems than mistaken political views :-). Seriously, the " living document " dodge just means that the constitution means whatever the current crop of judges says it does - speaking of might making right. It is a recipe for tyranny. One of the reasons the Roe v. Wade controversy won't go away, to the consternation and I think surprise of the left, is that it was imposed upon us by judges who look at the constitution as a " living document " and find heretofore undiscovered " rights " in the peunumbra of an emanation, or whatever silly nonsense it was. TJMTSU-they just made that stuff up. > not a >changeless icon of an age we have thankfully left behind - often >amidst massive bloodshed and wasted resources. > > >With respect to voting, what one wants " ideally " is to extend the > franchise to those fit to deliberate and choose, and to deny it to > those not so fit (the idea that everyone has a natural right to go into a booth and vote his or her prejudices - just because - is to my mind utterly arbitrary and silly). > > Would you rather have the Congress, the courts, the Bush Admin decide who is " fit " Dan? Yes. (Not necessarily the Bush admin., but whichever admin.) > Who should, IYO, be excluded outright from the privilege to vote, >other than those are now excluded by law? How about anyone with a net worth of less than, say $500,000? That excludes a lot of the right people, without establishing a true plutocracy. You still have lots of responsible, striving middle- class types with the franchise. It's not all old money, but it's still a lot old money. I'm not wedded to this, it's just a suggestion. > > > > If you don't like excluding women from the franchise, then perhaps > we could say that both men and women who meet a certain property > > qualification should have the franchise (see? - I am easy to get > > along with). > > Oh, so very agreeable. I'm sure you could easily eliminate women >from the franchise. Far easier to do so if you're a white man. Not so very easy, as a matter of fact. I very much doubt that I will see it, lol. > How about excluding those who own property, leaving it up to >the " have nots " among us? What a novel idea. Not novel, just bad. What would make us think that people who can't earn a decent living for themselves are somehow then competent to rule their fellow citizens? First things first. It's like putting someone who can't pass the driver's test on the racetrack. If you want to see what will happen when this is done, though, keep an eye on Bolivia (unless proper steps are taken through the appropriate channels, which they might be). > That would certainly force some social justice wouldn't it? No. That would force chaos, followed by tyranny. That is Zimbabwe. It is true that the lower classes, when given the opportunity, will vote themselves largesse from the public treasury - but that leads to ruin. We mustn't let it happen. > As soon as you become a " have " you lose your voting rights. What >an idea! Probably makes as much sense than the one you propose. >What about property ownership uniquely qualifies one with proper >governing qualities? Good question. The ability to acquire property denotes a certain prudence, temperance, and other virtues also useful for ruling - see ilin et al. about this. It's a good (not perfect, but good) rough and ready test of fitness for voting. But what, you say, about those with inherited wealth? What about the Paris Hilton problem? The Paris Hilton problem is indeed a problem. The only answer is the aristocratic ideal. Those with inherited money must also inherit responsibility, and be educated to that responsibility. This is called aristocracy, and it cannot be dispensed with. >What qualifications do those who inherit property have for guiding >the life of the nation anyway? They tend to be motivated only to >perpetuate of a system that has put them in control (again power, >without love or wisdom). And people say that I am cynical. Did Churchill care only for power, without love or wisdom? Or, for the matter of that, did FDR? >Many wars have been fought over this notion of course. Wars have been fought over all sorts of things, and will continue to do so. As long as there are human beings, there will be wars. > But then, >you may assert the divine right of kings makes good sense Rule by a good king is the best form of government, but the rarity of good kings and the problem of succession makes it usually unworkable. > and that >Democracy itself is foolish. Democracy itself *is* foolish. I hasten to add that my own country is not a democracy in the true sense, and must not be allowed to become one. >You live in the wrong century Dan! Yes. >Must be painful to you It is, but what matters is not our pains but what we bring to them. > > > What we don't want is what we are perilously close to having - > > having those that frankly termed " the rabble " in the > > driver's seat (for what happens when the unfit drive, see my past > > life above). > > No, we mustn't have the unwashed riffraff in the " driver's seat " >Dan. We have had the likes of es, Kennedy and Roosevelt in >the presidency. And a few have been good presidents. And we have >also had some of the unwashed there too, , True. >Lincoln, Washed himself. Talent will out. > Truman, I don't know - he had what it took to rain death on our enemies. I'll give him his props for that. Also an autodidact, which I like. > Clinton, Amen. > and some others. Not all bad. Hard to generalize on this one. > > But perhaps you prefer our present " richocracy, " governed only by >those with special interest agendas and adequate payola when the >votes are taken. I prefer rule, in our American circumstances, by a combination of the genuinely wealthy, old-money types, and the solid middle-class striving types, as above. Different places may have different requirements, of course. >It doesn't seem to be working for us very well. Compared to what? You can't ever expect utopia (that's what makes it utopia, lol). Things are pretty bad, but then again, they always are. That's the norm. That said, things are really not so bad comparatively speaking. You want opportunities? You got 'em? You want to have your say? You're having it. Etc. > In any case, we have exactly the leadership we deserve, most unfortunately. " The best government money can buy, " as Will said. > > > One of the authors helping to effect this change was Jung. > > Keep reading Dan....lege, lege, lege. > > > Jung DID know that territory. Yes, he did. That (among other reasons) is why, with due respect, I trust him more than I trust you as a thinker and a guide. > > It is so interesting how we can read the same words and yet take such different meaning from them. Fascinating. > > No offense taken. Jung is a much better guide than I'll ever be; one that we most definately agree on Dan. That is for sure. He seems to guide us as qw project our own meaning onto him.... Best regards, Dan Watkins > > Greg > > > > _______________________________________________ > Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com > The most personalized portal on the Web! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 Dear Carol, I am willing to be corrected. Where does Jung say this, please? Regards, Dan Watkins > > > Date: 2006/01/24 Tue AM 08:49:21 EST > To: <JUNG-FIRE > > Subject: Re: Dan's misogyny > > Dan writes: > Jung says what he says. I don't think, for example, that you can explain > away Jung's remarks re: capital punishment by appeal to context. Seems > quite clear to me. But if you can show that his words mean something > other than their plain sense, I'm listenin Jung later changed his views on capital punishment as he reflected more on the workings of the shadow. Eventually he was against it because it would be killing off the shadow. Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 Dear Carol, I have no way of knowing what Jung might have said to family members in private conversation, but this is not what he says in the Z-Seminars as published. Quite the opposite, in fact. Regards, Dan > > > Date: 2006/01/24 Tue PM 12:59:04 EST > To: <JUNG-FIRE > > Subject: Re: Dan's misogyny > > > Dear Carol, you wrote: >> >> Jung later changed his views on capital punishment as he reflected more >> on >> the workings of the shadow. Eventually he was against it because it would > be >> killing off the shadow. > > Do you have an exact quote for this? Dan, I would also be grateful if you > would provide a quote of Jung on capital punishment, as I remember reading > the passage to which you refer but cannot now find it. I was under the > impression, although more than willing to be corrected, that Jung avoided > being drawn into expressing a purely personal opinion one way or the other > about capital punishment, but that he did say that it appeared to be a > collective psychological necessity for justice to be seen to be done > (which > led me to agree with Dan's view that he probably was more in favour of it > than not). > > fa pha, Jung writes about capital punishment in Nietzsche's Zarathustra. His later comments on the subject were told to me by a Jungian analyst who learned them in conversations with Jung's grandson and also with von Franz. Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 Dear fa, If you mean that Jung's opinion on capital punishment was not a reflection of his personal lust for revenge, I very much agree. " They kill murderers in France, in Italy, in England, in America, in Germany, and in most Catholic cantons in Switzerland; only a few very enlightened and reasonable communities have gone astray so far is not to kill murderers. I am not speaking of our Christianity - that point of view is not valid at all, only talk; I go by facts and the fact is that capital punishment is valid in nearly all the most enlightened and civilized countries, and I am not against it. There is a very good reason why it is so. All other ways of punishment are wrong. By putting the criminal to death, one shares the crime; otherwise, one doesn't see the criminal in oneself. " CGJ, Nietzsche Seminar, May 8, 1935 See also May 15, 1935 seminar. There is also a piece in CG Jung Thinking, but I can't put my hands on it at the moment. Jung's view of capital punishment is something like that which Heward describes (although not entirely aptly) as the " scapegoat " view. The difference between the pale criminal and the scapegoat, however, is that the pale criminal has actually committed the crime. best, Dan > > > Date: 2006/01/24 Tue AM 11:25:39 EST > To: <JUNG-FIRE > > Subject: Re: Dan's misogyny > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 ----- > Dear Carol, > > I have no way of knowing what Jung might have said to family members in > private conversation, but this is not what he says in the Z-Seminars as > published. Quite the opposite, in fact. > > Regards, > > Dan Dear Dan, Yes, that's true. I studied this text for two years with the analyst I spoke of. We had a long discussion about the things Jung later changed, e.g., his definition of the archetype, which was expanded in his encounter with i. I think it makes perfect sense, though, that he would gradually come to that idea as he deepened his understanding of the psyche. I mean, I think it makes sense when you think about the nature of the shadow. Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 We Quakers go along with that Dan... not easy to hold or justify either. I do not want to kill a person for any reason whatsoever- and after that ye can argue it out. > Dear fa, > > > If you mean that Jung's opinion on capital punishment was not a > reflection of his personal lust for revenge, I very much agree. > > " They kill murderers in France, in Italy, in England, in America, in > Germany, and in most Catholic cantons in Switzerland; only a few very > enlightened and reasonable communities have gone astray so far is not > to kill murderers. I am not speaking of our Christianity - that point > of view is not valid at all, only talk; I go by facts and the fact is > that capital punishment is valid in nearly all the most enlightened > and civilized countries, and I am not against it. There is a very good > reason why it is so. All other ways of punishment are wrong. > > By putting the criminal to death, one shares the crime; otherwise, one > doesn't see the criminal in oneself. " > > CGJ, Nietzsche Seminar, May 8, 1935 > > See also May 15, 1935 seminar. > > There is also a piece in CG Jung Thinking, but I can't put my hands on > it at the moment. > > Jung's view of capital punishment is something like that which Heward > describes (although not entirely aptly) as the " scapegoat " view. The > difference between the pale criminal and the scapegoat, however, is > that the pale criminal has actually committed the crime. > > best, > > Dan > > > > > > > > Date: 2006/01/24 Tue AM 11:25:39 EST > > To: <JUNG-FIRE > > > Subject: Re: Dan's misogyny > > > > > > > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby > beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and > suffering. " > > H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.