Re: Iran

[Guest guest]

Alice, all,Please excuse me to find only a critical motive evoking a response when Iotherwise would continue reading silently, but, once again Alice, it seemssomething ill defined is concretized so as to provide the reasoningagainst concretization itself.It is a general aspect of the contradictory psyche that the mythologembecomes hypostatic and literalized. This may even serve necessaryrequirements for future softening and complexification and quickening andindividuation.In the psychological sense, and (waggishly,) 'literally', who's to say?So, one cannot suppose an irrational dominant, (let alone appeal totranspersonal structures, etc.) and then at the same time make the appealto a rational, concrete, commonsensical, position dominated by the ideathat, for example, 'literalization,' is per force a misunderstandingrather than it being a key moment. . . .a key irrational moment. (+)***But your discussion surprises me."In rational Islam, Sufism,"There is a fault line in Sufism, describing at least several 'sufisms,'those 'versions' located between an orthodoxy that is necessarily at timesliteralistic, and, at the margins, a heterodoxy that is 'psychologizing'*.Shi'ism, itself fragmented, is often especially stern, but Krauthammer,(who obviously is the opposite of a reliable source,) conflates Sunnisalafism and jihadism with Shi-i eschatology and millenialism. Howignorant!***As always, the interesting question which few wish to forthrightly addressis this: is God entirely a psychological-experiential-human artificedphenomena?Any discernment of extra or supra agency could allow for 'literal'literalism. Many so-called 'Jungians' seem confused about this, or,rather, like 'Sufis,' they weigh in on one side or the other, ot go backand forth.regards to all, in Clepheland(+) This may not be true.* Arabi, Ghazzali, Rumi would be proto-psychological in outlook, in effect."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

[Guest guest]

Alice, all,

Please excuse me to find only a critical motive evoking a response when I

otherwise would continue reading silently, but, once again Alice, it seems

something ill defined is concretized so as to provide the reasoning

against concretization itself.

It is a general aspect of the contradictory psyche that the mythologem

becomes hypostatic and literalized. This may even serve necessary

requirements for future softening and complexification and quickening and

individuation.

In the psychological sense, and (waggishly,) 'literally', who's to say?

So, one cannot suppose an irrational dominant, (let alone appeal to

transpersonal structures, etc.) and then at the same time make the appeal

to a rational, concrete, commonsensical, position dominated by the idea

that, for example, 'literalization,' is per force a misunderstanding

rather than it being a key moment. . . .a key irrational moment. (+)

***

But your discussion surprises me.

" In rational Islam, Sufism, "

There is a fault line in Sufism, describing at least several 'sufisms,'

those 'versions' located between an orthodoxy that is necessarily at times

literalistic, and, at the margins, a heterodoxy that is 'psychologizing'*.

Shi'ism, itself fragmented, is often especially stern, but Krauthammer,

(who obviously is the opposite of a reliable source,) conflates Sunni

salafism and jihadism with Shi-i eschatology and millenialism. How

ignorant!

***

As always, the interesting question which few wish to forthrightly address

is this: is God entirely a psychological-experiential-human artificed

phenomena?

Any discernment of extra or supra agency could allow for 'literal'

literalism. Many so-called 'Jungians' seem confused about this, or,

rather, like 'Sufis,' they weigh in on one side or the other, ot go back

and forth.

regards to all,

in Clepheland

(+) This may not be true.

* Arabi, Ghazzali, Rumi would be proto-psychological in outlook, in effect.

[Guest guest]

Alice, all,

Omigoodness. How can you tell some written out text is incredibly

" thinking function " ? What are the clues and signs? (I'm sensing

strongly we understand the Psychological Types quite differently.)

Psychological fundamentalism takes the same literalistic turn as

religious fundamentalism.

Bush and 'Ahmad' may be literalists and may be messianic,

(delusional?) and this indeed is worrisome to those who worry about

such things, but the critique based in taking a subjective

psychological viewpoint literally seems odd to me.

Maybe Bush and Ahmad necessarily have to be this way so as to set up

the religious problem (per Jung,) that will bring them to reconcile

their different problems of personality? As I said, who's to say?

Anyway, the USA has 10,000 atomic bombs, and Iran may want some. I

agree with Jung. Collect enough guns together and they will start

going off 'by themselves'. We (the US) should get rid of our bombs. I

don't think Iran should have atomic weapons but then I don't think

anybody should have them.

An atomic arsenal is dangerous in the hands of anybody, and, probably

more dangerous in the hands of delusional leaders. Should only sane

leaders lead countries with atomic weapons?

My guess is that the idea that Iran can become the first Arab nation

with an atomic weapon is very powerful amongst Iran's leadership. I

believe the US leadership once had a very similar thought tens of

thousands of weapons ago.

What else is new?

regards,

[Guest guest]

> My guess is that the idea that Iran can become the first Arab nation

> with an atomic weapon is very powerful amongst Iran's leadership. I

> believe the US leadership once had a very similar thought tens of

> thousands of weapons ago.

>

> What else is new?

Trying to develop atomic weapons in order to end the world.

For me, you still haven't made your input clear. Were you saying the author

of the Time article didn't understand the concept of the 12th Imam? Was your

point that anything can serve individuation and who are we to judge?

Carol

[Guest guest]

Carol, all,

>Carol: Were you saying the author

>of the Time article didn't understand the concept of the 12th Imam?

There's no evidence provided in the article that suggests Krauthammer

is even interested in contextualizing Shia millenialism. He's a

neocon polemicist who would just as soon lump Shia millenialism in

with salafi jihadism and be done with it.

>Carol:Was your

>point that anything can serve individuation and who are we to judge?

Yeah, following from absolutizing and universalizing and concretizing

the analytic psychology " as if " it allows one, at the end of the day,

to wipe away the various other domains through which we might

understand the rich and various (as well as variable contexts of Shia

religiosity.

Which is to say, at the level of the individual, given a psychology

of individuation, WHO are we to say?

Furthermore, what of the inflation our own psychological prejudices

implement, prejudices which allow us to concretize the analytic

psychology and deploy it to criticize concretizing literalism?

So, in literalizing our own view we use it to deplore somebody else's

literalizing their own, different view?

***

Is God a being that exists outside of our own psyche and agency?

If not, is the intrinsic Self the fundamental reference point?

If it is, how do we rightly qualify what the Self of Bush, for

example, is *really* up to?

(This is not to discount the effects of collectives and their

projections upon leaders. When we take this into account, it becomes

altogether more complex. Needless to say, Krauthammer, a Freudian

psychiatrist by training, doesn't wish to fold this in for public

consumption.)

regards,

[Guest guest]

Re: Iran

> My guess is that the idea that Iran can become the first Arab nation

> with an atomic weapon is very powerful amongst Iran's leadership. I

> believe the US leadership once had a very similar thought tens of

> thousands of weapons ago.

>

> What else is new?

Trying to develop atomic weapons in order to end the world.

For me, you still haven't made your input clear. Were you saying the author

of the Time article didn't understand the concept of the 12th Imam? Was your

point that anything can serve individuation and who are we to judge?

Carol

N: This all may be perfectly valid 'THIS TIME'. But doesn't it remind us

all of the WMDs in Iraq? Bush tends to come up with such 'leaks' to rally

the country around an attack when he's on the spot in other areas. And the

media monolith is always glad to oblige with anything that stirs the

emotions. Let's be slow to buy into any scares outside the US.

Blessings,

[Guest guest]

To: <JUNG-FIRE >

Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 10:59 AM

Subject: Re: Iran

>

> Is God a being that exists outside of our own psyche and agency?

>

> If not, is the intrinsic Self the fundamental reference point?

>

> If it is, how do we rightly qualify what the Self of Bush, for

> example, is *really* up to?

And yet there are times when we cannot not act.

Thanks for your clarification, . I understand you now, I hope (a

little fence sitting in your honor)!

Carol

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

>

> Trying to develop atomic weapons in order to end the world.

>

> N: This all may be perfectly valid 'THIS TIME'. But doesn't it remind us

> all of the WMDs in Iraq? Bush tends to come up with such 'leaks' to

> rally

> the country around an attack when he's on the spot in other areas. And

> the

> media monolith is always glad to oblige with anything that stirs the

> emotions. Let's be slow to buy into any scares outside the US.

Dear ... the above sentence was a repetition of what the article was

implying - not my opinion. I know I didn't make that very clear. I'm with

you.

Carol

[Guest guest]

Re: Iran

----- Original Message -----

>

> Trying to develop atomic weapons in order to end the world.

>

> N: This all may be perfectly valid 'THIS TIME'. But doesn't it remind us

> all of the WMDs in Iraq? Bush tends to come up with such 'leaks' to

> rally

> the country around an attack when he's on the spot in other areas. And

> the

> media monolith is always glad to oblige with anything that stirs the

> emotions. Let's be slow to buy into any scares outside the US.

Dear ... the above sentence was a repetition of what the article was

implying - not my opinion. I know I didn't make that very clear. I'm with

you.

Carol

N: Thanks, Carol. It wouldn't have made any difference but reading Alice's

last before posting just might have ;-)

Blessings,

[Guest guest]

> If it is, how do we rightly qualify what the Self of Bush, for

> example, is *really* up to?

As I am understand things, the " Self of Bush " is the same as the Self for

everyone. It is not his Self that concerns me....not in the least. But I do

have concerns for his ego and his identification with it, as well as his

propensity to project his Shadow onto so many others. It's the human

condition....and he is very human, like all the rest of us. When Bush becomes

aware of his Self (should that happen), the rest of us may be able to rest a

little easier. That is my observation.

Greg

_______________________________________________

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

The most personalized portal on the Web!