Re: How To React To It

[Guest guest]

 

Gene, I believe we are different types.I believe likewise.Using Jungian terms I tend to prefer Thinking to Feeling, though I do like my Thoughts and Feelings/Emotions to peacefully coexist, if not harmonize.

Just as I prefer that my maps of the territory have more than a few correspondences with The Territory itself.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation

  I think this explains why I find it hard to respond to what you say. Yes, perhaps.

I will only say - in my liking short posts way

- when I read books on epistemology " experiencing " something was a way of

knowing. And it seemed epistemology was all about " theories of knowing. "

So my theory is as good as yours from my perspective.Yes, from your perspective ... but for what purposes and allowing for what deleterious side effects?What if everyone were allowed experiential forms of knowing irrespective of corroberating evidence vis-a-vis the so-called Real World?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2rcqXFrY8sSo for Chicken Little the sky WAS falling?For a paranoid schizophrenic `things' are as imagined ... however lacking in corroborating evidence?

For the fundamentalist zealot `things' are as their sacred text -- interpreted literally, rather than figuratively, symbolically, and/or metaphorically -- SAYS they ARE. For he or she (mis)employing a decidedly impoverished model of The Real World, the model should in all cases prevail .... unchallenged, un-improved?

http://www.tcd.ie/Psychology/other/Ruth_Byrne/mental_models/

Getting back to your comment, Betty, I met someone who told me she tries to turn

the other cheek in responding to organized gang stalking.From my perspective, which you just acknowledged is as good as yours, not thinking about the pink elephant named `organized gang stalking' by turning the other cheek does not remove the Pink elephant from the living room ... or universe of discourse in this group, apparently.

Seems any attention GOOD attention, Bonnie?What does so-called `organized gang stalking' have to do with anything Jungian?Are any and all reification fallacies fair game for discussion in this group?

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

May I conjure up an abstraction, give it a name, then proceed to act-as-if it had material existence?What if my misuse Calvin's transmogrifier gun turns a stuffed animal into a real-for-me Tiger and my cartooning skills are insufficient to me profiting from my imaginative and fictive processes?

http://www.google.com/images?client=ubuntu & channel=fs & q=calvin+and+hobbes+quotes & oe=utf-8 & um=1 & ie=UTF-8 & source=og & sa=N & hl=en & tab=wi

Do all paper tigers have teeth ... or just in the minds of those bitten by their own transmogrifications?I, for one, can't discern a non-`organized gang stalker' from a card-carrying member.Would you be so kind as to inform me of your duck tests for this subspecies of duck?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_testPerhaps if better informed I too can reify this pink elephant you've placed firmly into the communal living room ... in the universe of discourse, in the consciousness of the collective.

I wonder what C.G.Jung would have to say about an `Organized Collective-conscious Stalker'.Gene

[Guest guest]

I wonder what C.G.Jung would have to say about an `Organized Collective-consciou s Stalker'.

Most likely he would initially look at what we call the shadow dance but then he would realize that once one of the partners says they don't want to dance with the other, there is no longer a shadow dance.

All stalking, including gang and cause stalking, the latter taken very seriously by law enforcement with regard to "causes" such as abortion rights and animal rights, begins with a dance between two. But one leaves the dance floor and the other declares war and seeks to destroy the one who has left the dance floor. And the dance continues. With the stalker dancing by himself. Takes two to tango? Sometimes it only takes one.

And I personally believe that Hillman's theory of the bad seed is part of the dynamic. The bad seed seeks to destroy the good seed. To prevent anyone from seeing the reflection of the bad seed in the good seed.

And sometimes the other engages others in the war. And the dance. Which does then become a shadow dance again. It just doesn't involve the victim who is no longer dancing with anyone. And instead of a tango, you have a cotillion. All trying to lure the victim back to the dance floor.

In any case, I doubt seriously Jung would assume, as you obviously do, that the stalker or anyone participating in the stalking is a pink elephant. Merely being imagined by the stalking victim. He would see the stalker. And see those who were participating in the stalking. And get into other theories about shadow. And ego. But not related to the victim. I doubt Jung will fall into the trap of many Jungians and believe a victim is a volunteer. Such an approach would enable complete chaos in our society. Some would say, I certainly would, that in fact it has.

You might want to study the dynamic of gaslighting which is a dynamic found in abusive relationships as well as many stalking situations. It is accepted as a real dynamic by the majority of psychologists and psychiatrists who work with domestic abuse/violence and by those who work with stalking victims. Stalking is something society as a whole does not deal with well so it chooses not to deal with it at all. It frightens some. It is a mirror for others who unfortunately see similar dynamics at work in themselves. So in order to avoid confront the victimizer in themselves, they merely choose to declare that the victim is seeing a pink elephant. When in fact the elephant is very real. And very dangerous. Made moreso by the declaration that the elephant is not real and only imagined. .

The objective of gaslighting is to first convince the victim that they are seeing a pink elephant and then to convince everyone else that the victim is seeing a pink elephant.

Stalking is an act of psychlogical violence. And that dynamic is no more evident than in the dynamic of gaslighting. If you convince everyone else the victim is seeing a pink elephant, then eventually the victim will believe it. And believe they are insane.

I have a pink elephant. Seen as a pink elephant who is held in high regard by a group of Jungians who prefer not to see a stalker and see a pink elephant instead although I am not sure what it is they see beyond the pink elephant. A checkbook perhaps? Or perhaps the power to destroy someone's life? An admirable quality perhaps for some Jungians. But not for those who see a stalker. Not a pink elephant.

I of course cannot speak for Jung but I suspect he would agree with me that sometimes it only takes one to tango and that discourse with fools produces only foolish discourse.

And he probably would remind me that he was indeed glad that he was Jung and not a Jungian. Particuarly these Jungians.

Gene, I believe we are different types.

I believe likewise.Using Jungian terms I tend to prefer Thinking to Feeling, though I do like my Thoughts and Feelings/Emotions to peacefully coexist, if not harmonize.Just as I prefer that my maps of the territory have more than a few correspondences with The Territory itself.http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Map%E2%80% 93territory_ relation

I think this explains why I find it hard to respond to what you say.

Yes, perhaps.

I will only say - in my liking short posts way - when I read books on epistemology "experiencing" something was a way of knowing. And it seemed epistemology was all about "theories of knowing."

So my theory is as good as yours from my perspective.

Yes, from your perspective ... but for what purposes and allowing for what deleterious side effects?What if everyone were allowed experiential forms of knowing irrespective of corroberating evidence vis-a-vis the so-called Real World?http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=a2rcqXFrY8sSo for Chicken Little the sky WAS falling?For a paranoid schizophrenic `things' are as imagined ... however lacking in corroborating evidence?For the fundamentalist zealot `things' are as their sacred text -- interpreted literally, rather than figuratively, symbolically, and/or metaphorically -- SAYS they ARE. For he or she (mis)employing a decidedly impoverished model of The Real World, the model should in all cases prevail .... unchallenged, un-improved?http://www.tcd. ie/Psychology/ other/Ruth_ Byrne/mental_ models/

Getting back to your comment, Betty, I met someone who told me she tries to turn the other cheek in responding to organized gang stalking.

From my perspective, which you just acknowledged is as good as yours, not thinking about the pink elephant named `organized gang stalking' by turning the other cheek does not remove the Pink elephant from the living room ... or universe of discourse in this group, apparently.Seems any attention GOOD attention, Bonnie?What does so-called `organized gang stalking' have to do with anything Jungian?Are any and all reification fallacies fair game for discussion in this group?http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Reification_ %28fallacy% 29http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Symbol_groundingMay I conjure up an abstraction, give it a name, then proceed to act-as-if it had material existence?What if my misuse Calvin's transmogrifier gun

turns a stuffed animal into a real-for-me Tiger and my cartooning skills are insufficient to me profiting from my imaginative and fictive processes?http://www.google. com/images? client=ubuntu & channel=fs & q=calvin+and+ hobbes+quotes & oe=utf-8 & um=1 & ie=UTF-8 & source=og & sa=N & hl=en & tab=wiDo all paper tigers have teeth ... or just in the minds of those bitten by their own transmogrifications ?I, for one, can't discern a non-`organized gang stalker' from a card-carrying member.Would you be so kind as to inform me of your duck tests for this subspecies of duck?http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/

Duck_testPerhaps if better informed I too can reify this pink elephant you've placed firmly into the communal living room ... in the universe of discourse, in the consciousness of the collective.I wonder what C.G.Jung would have to say about an `Organized Collective-consciou s Stalker'.Gene

[Guest guest]

In any case, I doubt seriously Jung would assume, as you obviously do, that the stalker or anyone participating in the stalking is a pink elephant.

Obvious to you?That you call and afix an indenity-imbuing label to someone does not compel me to do the same.if someone enacts `stalking' then reverts or transitions to some other form of behavior how wise would it be of me to think of them as a once-a-stalker-always-a-stalker.

Sans criteria to support criteria-based cognition your labeling someone/anyone a stalker is, for me no different than proclaiming an ink blot as such.That you use the the term `is' as you have, do, and undoubtedly shall may serve to promote in the minds of the undiscerning entification, reification, and/or hypostaticization.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/entificationhttp://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reificationhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypostatization

So ... to misuse your rhetorical form ... `as you obviously do' nominalize process into a thing, you engender the type of psychopathology which good therapists treat by denominalization ... the turning of a would-be `thing' in someone's impoverished mental model back into a fluid, flowing process.

I have no doubt that Bonnie experienced `stalking'.And I have no doubt that Bonnie has regarded herself a stalkEE and done-too and Those Others as StalkERs and doers.Yes in this forum you seem a doer ... one doing some fixating, nominalizing, and making-real for others what seems all too real for you.

My personal sky is not falling, Chicken Little.And ad_hoc groups have ALWAYS been able to single out an individual for `special treatment'.For me there is precious little value added by the term `gang stalking' or `gang stalker'.

And if someone were to come up with a term for the sky falling in perpetuity I would reject that as a pathology-promoting thingification-pending-denominalization too.We cannot NOT think of the pink elephants or `stalkers'  injected into this universe of discourse.  There are laws which prevent one from yelling `Fire!' in a crowed theater when there is no fire.  There are no laws to prevent one from yelling `gang stalker' in this forum.

But my curiosity remains.  Why do so?Does the creation of a new term or phrase warm the cockles of your heart?Do we need another form of `hate crime' for those who seemingly care more about someone's intentions than their observable overt deeds?

And once the category is established we can project or imbue intentions into and onto others irrespective of their actual behavior or the myriad ways in which it can be interpreted.Now please tell one and all what I obviously have assumed THIS TIME.

Read the tea leaves for one and all and perhaps produce a new noun phrase attractor for our thing-loving minds to be drawn towards and wrap themselves around.  Once a <noun-cum-identity>, always a <noun-cum-identity>,

  Gene