Re: The Madness of Geroge Bush (Political comment with a Jungian ...

[Guest guest]

>Good Grief!

Um, this is pretty hard to interpret. Has it to do with the content of the piece, the length of the piece, or what? *S*

Blissings,

Sam

Don't believe everything you think. ~ Bumper StickerMany of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view. ~ Obi-Wan Kenobi Choose your illusion carefully. ~ UnknownWho looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes. ~ C.G. Jung (from a letter to Fanny Bowditch, dated 22 Oct 1916 in Volume I of the Letters of C. G. Jung)A dream is an answer to a question we haven't yet learned how to ask. ~ Fox Mulder on the X-FilesJust because I believe something doesn't mean it's true; just because I don't believe something doesn't mean it's untrue. ~ Sam

[Guest guest]

Good Grief!

Sara

Ha ha ha,, be careful what you ask for Sara, you might just get it, but that doesn't mean you will enjoy it eh?

Cheers,

The Mutt

[Guest guest]

>Hard to interpret my comment?

>

>The piece was unloving and politically biased to the point of turning me completly off.

Yup, it was, for me. And your explanation above clarifies it precisely. Thanks.

Blissings,

Sam

If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking. -- Denis WaitleyIt is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- AristotleThe goal of an argument should be progress, not victory. -- Author unknownAccept complete responsibility both for understanding and for being understood. -- He's a blockhead who wants a proof of what he can't perceive; And he's a fool who tries to make such a blockhead believe. -- Blake

[Guest guest]

>Perhaps we could do a better job of clarifying its presence when we do see it though, and >that point is well taken.

Hi Greg,

Sometimes it seems to me that the most conscientious, if not loving, thing we could do, indeed, is to shout, "The emperor is wearing no clothes!"

And Dan, as for whether or not Levy has "analyzed" President Bush personally and is therefore qualified to make the statements he has, well, it seems to me that if it's possible to do "psychological autopsies," and if the FBI can define profiles of perpetrators and even perhaps predict where, what and when another crime might happen by these perpetrators, based on various evidences in their past actions, then it seems at least theoretically possible that Levy might conceivably do something similar, too.

Blissings,

Sam

If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking. -- Denis WaitleyIt is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- AristotleThe goal of an argument should be progress, not victory. -- Author unknownAccept complete responsibility both for understanding and for being understood. -- Just because I believe something doesn't mean it's true; just because I don't believe something doesn't mean it's untrue. ~ Sam

[Guest guest]

>Yet it is usually the emperor himself who doesn't get the message, yet needs to hear it the >most. Also the case now, IMO....whoops, there I go again!

Yup, I agree about the emperor but I think even if he's still protected from the truth it's gonna come out even if not in time to prevent what has already happened. Maybe the best we can hope for is to prevent more of the same and clean up the mess we have on hand. If we live long enough. I plan on living to about 120 or so, so ...

>The only real voice we have is casting our ballots at election time or writing our Congressment, the >latter of which I have found a complete waste of time and stamps (remember, I'm from Kansas).

And don't forget, I'm from Texas so I hear ya! The only good thing I can say about Kay Hutchison is that her office consistently answers every one of my letters, even if the answers are often totally non sequiturs. None of the others I've written to bother to acknowledge letters, emails, etc. Though I did actually get a letter signed with the first Bush's name several years ago, and not by one of his aides, etc. I've never decided if he actually signed it himself or if it was signed with one of those signing machines. But it's on heavy eggshell-colored paper and the return address is The White House, so...

I wonder if it'll ever be worth anything on Antiques Roadshow one of these days! *WEG*

>I'm sure Machiavelli would not agree with my premise. But then, the majority are not necessarily >Machiavelians methinks. I thinks you're right. *S* When I read The Prince I was impressed with his total practicality but I just couldn't buy into the coldness of it all. If one has any belief at all in a unified field concept it's just not gonna work. It's like hitting your head against a stone wall and complaining because your head hurts.

Blissings,

Sam

Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I'll meet you there.~ Rumi

[Guest guest]

>OK. Maybe the emperor is wearing no clothes. Levy, perhaps?

*BG*

Blissings,

Sam Let us clothe ourselves in a mutual tolerance of one another’s views. ~ St. Clement of Rome

[Guest guest]

I stick by my comment. "Good grief."

Hard to interpret my comment?

The piece was unloving and politically biased to the point of turning me completly off.

Sara

Re: The Madness of Geroge Bush (Political comment with a Jungian ...

In a message dated 10/16/2006 4:01:45 P.M. Central Daylight Time, saratw2 writes:

>Good Grief!

Um, this is pretty hard to interpret. Has it to do with the content of the piece, the length of the piece, or what? *S*

Blissings,

Sam

Don't believe everything you think. ~ Bumper StickerMany of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view. ~ Obi-Wan Kenobi Choose your illusion carefully. ~ UnknownWho looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes. ~ C.G. Jung (from a letter to Fanny Bowditch, dated 22 Oct 1916 in Volume I of the Letters of C. G. Jung)A dream is an answer to a question we haven't yet learned how to ask. ~ Fox Mulder on the X-FilesJust because I believe something doesn't mean it's true; just because I don't believe something doesn't mean it's untrue. ~ Sam

[Guest guest]

Dear Sara,

I don't think we can judge "unloving", nor is the writer asking for "loving" anything. Political discourse is discourse....and none of it ,as far as I know was ever "loving" We sure don't have a right to question the motive... Have you never called anyone "crazy"?

Politics is nasty and mean, always was always will be, passions get aroused.

Why not just say.." I disagree" with this picture because".....

As for political bias...name me one thing about our political scene that is not. We must judge that for ourselves only. Perhaps i would find your view "biased" or you, mine?

I imagine it was written to "turn you off" against the subject of the piece, don't you?

Please don't expect a "loving" November 7th....it is an election by people biased on each side.

Toni

Re: The Madness of Geroge Bush (Political comment with a Jungian ...

In a message dated 10/16/2006 4:01:45 P.M. Central Daylight Time, saratw2 writes:

>Good Grief!

Um, this is pretty hard to interpret. Has it to do with the content of the piece, the length of the piece, or what? *S*

Blissings,

Sam

[Guest guest]

Dear toni, I agree - politics is mean. (Yet, somehow I pray for something loving to envelope this nation.)

Anyway, to clarify, the article "turned me off." Big Time!

I have no question as to the motive. Leave loving out of it.

Best,

Sara

Re: The Madness of Geroge Bush (Political comment with a Jungian ...

In a message dated 10/16/2006 4:01:45 P.M. Central Daylight Time, saratw2 writes:

>Good Grief!

Um, this is pretty hard to interpret. Has it to do with the content of the piece, the length of the piece, or what? *S*

Blissings,

Sam

[Guest guest]

> the most conscientious, if not loving, thing we could do, indeed, is to shout,

" The emperor is wearing no clothes! "  

Hi Sam,

Yes, this is often very psychologically healthy for us non-emperors. In our

time it is downright cathartic! Yet it is usually the emperor himself who

doesn't get the message, yet needs to hear it the most. Also the case now,

IMO....whoops, there I go again!

And I have often worried, as I have shared onlist, whether my own efforts to

shout out about the present day emperor are indeed a massive personal shadow

projection on my part. That is my own burden to bear. Nevertheless, the fact

remains that we DO still fortunately live in a (more or less) enlightened

democracy, in which it is not only the right but our solemn duty of individual

citizens to speak out when we see our country erring badly. The only real voice

we have is casting our ballots at election time or writing our Congressment, the

latter of which I have found a complete waste of time and stamps (remember, I'm

from Kansas). We can also speak out editorially, which is occasionally

satisfying. But the real opportunity is to do what we do here on Jungfire, to

have respectful (and sometimes firey) dialog among friends, and to even be

occasionally persuaded to another point of view on the issues of the day. I,

for one, deeply appreciate this opportunity to share views

on the vital issues that affect our lives together on planet Earth, and highly

value those who have the courage, love and wisdom to speak out.

As to whether or not politics is the language of " love, " I seldom find that to

be the case. Why should it be. But also, why should it not be? The potential

is there; but it is the rare politician who can speak out, leading with love, as

opposed to ubiquitously negative campaigns or sarcasm, which seem by far the

preferred approach. I do not believe politics MUST be this way however. And

the politician who learns this language (Clinton came closest in recent memory)

could be the rare one who is eventually elected to " higher " office and call us

to our collective " higher purpose. " Isn't that the way a democracy could/should

work, anyway ideally? What say ye? Sorry in advance if this idea sounds

sickeningly naive to you Dan I'm sure Machiavelli would not agree with my

premise. But then, the majority are not necessarily Machiavelians methinks.

Greg

_______________________________________________

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

The most personalized portal on the Web!

[Guest guest]

OK. Maybe the emperor is wearing no clothes. Levy, perhaps?

Sara

Re: The Madness of Geroge Bush (Political comment with a Jungian ...

In a message dated 10/17/2006 2:32:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time, grieke1excite writes:

>Perhaps we could do a better job of clarifying its presence when we do see it though, and >that point is well taken.

Hi Greg,

Sometimes it seems to me that the most conscientious, if not loving, thing we could do, indeed, is to shout, "The emperor is wearing no clothes!"

And Dan, as for whether or not Levy has "analyzed" President Bush personally and is therefore qualified to make the statements he has, well, it seems to me that if it's possible to do "psychological autopsies," and if the FBI can define profiles of perpetrators and even perhaps predict where, what and when another crime might happen by these perpetrators, based on various evidences in their past actions, then it seems at least theoretically possible that Levy might conceivably do something similar, too.

Blissings,

Sam

If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking. -- Denis WaitleyIt is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- AristotleThe goal of an argument should be progress, not victory. -- Author unknownAccept complete responsibility both for understanding and for being understood. -- Just because I believe something doesn't mean it's true; just because I don't believe something doesn't mean it's untrue. ~ Sam

[Guest guest]

" And

the politician who learns this language (Clinton came closest in recent

memory)

could be the rare one who is eventually elected to " higher " office and

call us

to our collective " higher purpose. "

Does an individuated person continue to want to fall into a collective?

Or need a collective?

That is what has portents of the 1930s imo.

betty

[Guest guest]

Interesting question. Reminds me of my talking a while back about my sort of sense of nostalgia for I knew not what. Could it be... .?

Blissings,

Sam

Re: The Madness of Geroge Bush (Political comment with a Jungian ...

"And

the politician who learns this language (Clinton came closest in recent memory)

could be the rare one who is eventually elected to "higher" office and call us

to our collective "higher purpose."

Does an individuated person continue to want to fall into a collective?

Or need a collective?

That is what has portents of the 1930s imo.

betty

"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]

Dear betty,

There are NO individuated persons. Jung himself said it could not be

accomplished in a lifetime.

As we struggle to individuate, we will find we have to leave the collective

for our own integrity...but we will always " owe " the collective for our

space. Jung said, we ,must return in some way to help ourselves and the

collective along toward more consciousness.

There ARE NO FULLY INDIVIDUATED PERSONS ACCORDING TO JUNG WHO MADE UP THE

TERM. I know that we human beings think we understand our shadows so well

that we ( at least)are individuated...which of course includes our ability

to love.Our egos love to think we are at least ahead of others we know.

The humility to really know ourselves takes years or eons to cultivate...I

believe we would be shattered if we actually saw our true selves and our

distance from where we like to think we all are. .

The challenge is to actually work on getting to know who we are...and that

includes the individual unconscious.... a hard task indeed.

That would , if my idea is true, make your question rhetorical. ...at least

at this time of our human development.

We do have an obligation to the collective, if I read Jung aright. But

wanting to fall into it...why I imagine even partially " individuated " people

would like to think they are above it all....we are all so proud nowadays of

our rugged individualism...which is not at all what Jung meant by

" individuated.

We are a part of the collective called the human race...there is no way out

of that, and so are responsible on a larger scale for what the collective

does. Do we need it? The larger one " the human race " yes, I personally think

we do. The million thousands of us have the dignity of being human.

My opinion anyway...and i think Jung's too...but maybe someone sees it

differently? Are we then, the Jungian " collective " in some way?

Toni

Re: The Madness of Geroge Bush (Political comment with

a Jungian ...

> " And

> the politician who learns this language (Clinton came closest in recent

> memory)

> could be the rare one who is eventually elected to " higher " office and

> call us

> to our collective " higher purpose. "

>

> Does an individuated person continue to want to fall into a collective?

>

> Or need a collective?

>

> That is what has portents of the 1930s imo.

>

> betty

[Guest guest]

Toni, we do know some of the characteristics of an individuated person.

And longing for the collective is not one of them. I would say an

individuated person's contribution is mainly through his/her presence

and being.

And Alice, the bodhisattva vow is a beautiful thing. I suppose it is

almost wasted time to steer too far away from the Buddhist teaching.

I have to admit tho', I like the strenght in the zen masters, their no

nonsense and the martial arts that followed.

betty

-

[Guest guest]

Dear Betty,

Where did you get this idea? not from anything I ever said ?

you wrote:

" Toni, we do know some of the characteristics of an individuated person.

> And longing for the collective is not one of them. "

In my opinion the longing, the yearning is for the One...of which we are all

a part. That is not my understanding of " collective " as Jung meant it.

We have a continuing debt to the collective we leave....that is hardly a

longing , I would say....

Toni

Re: The Madness of Geroge Bush (Political comment with

a Jungian ...

> Toni, we do know some of the characteristics of an individuated person.

> And longing for the collective is not one of them. I would say an

> individuated person's contribution is mainly through his/her presence

> and being.

>

> And Alice, the bodhisattva vow is a beautiful thing. I suppose it is

> almost wasted time to steer too far away from the Buddhist teaching.

>

> I have to admit tho', I like the strenght in the zen masters, their no

> nonsense and the martial arts that followed.

> betty

[Guest guest]

Toni,

This quote of yours is the reason I said what I said. We may not be

able to know an individuated person, but we do know some of the

characteristics of some.

My post that elicited your response was written in haste and I hope I

have made it clearer. I even had to be told from that same post that

the Zen Masters are Buddhist, it was written in so much haste.

Betty

" Dear betty,

There are NO individuated persons. Jung himself said it could not be

accomplished in a lifetime.

As we struggle to individuate, we will find we have to leave the

collective

for our own integrity...but we will always " owe " the collective for

our

space. Jung said, we ,must return in some way to help ourselves and

the

collective along toward more consciousness. "

> " Toni, we do know some of the characteristics of an individuated

person.

> > And longing for the collective is not one of them. "

>

> In my opinion the longing, the yearning is for the One...of which

we are all

> a part. That is not my understanding of " collective " as Jung meant

it.

>

> We have a continuing debt to the collective we leave....that is

hardly a

> longing , I would say....

>

> Toni

>

> Re: The Madness of Geroge Bush (Political

comment with

> a Jungian ...

>

>

> > Toni, we do know some of the characteristics of an individuated

person.

> > And longing for the collective is not one of them. I would say an

> > individuated person's contribution is mainly through his/her

presence

> > and being.

> >

> > And Alice, the bodhisattva vow is a beautiful thing. I suppose it

is

> > almost wasted time to steer too far away from the Buddhist

teaching.

> >

> > I have to admit tho', I like the strenght in the zen masters,

their no

> > nonsense and the martial arts that followed.

> > betty

>