Evidence Supporting Collective Unconscious/Archetypes? Anybody? (was Demonstrating)
Grrr
wrote:
>A good place to start in understanding archetypes, for me, was to examine
>archetypal actions. A sneeze may be a universal action but it signifies
>little about the psyche (soul). Anger, however, is an action so typical
>of the condition of man that it is an arch type--as are selfishness, and
>love or some lack of love.
The best way for any person to understand archetypal themes is to
start writing down their dreams.
The_Sage
>Date written: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 08:38:36 -0700
>MsgID:<jkR49.11$%L4.2...@news.uswest.net>
>>How can I have an advanced discussion with someone who doesn't even
>>know the basics, as you obviously don't know?
>Apparently, anyone who disagrees with "sage" must be ignorant. We all know
>that informed people agree on everything.
I noticed you have no facts for or against this "debate" either. How
can you say you know something is false when you don't even know what
it is?
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://home.rmci.net/thesage
"Be careful when casting out your demons, lest you cast out
the best part of yourself" -- ??
=============================================================
The_Sage
>Date written: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:38:03 -0700
>MsgID:<cur7luc5kdeq0po1f...@4ax.com>
>>"Be careful when casting out your demons, lest you cast out
>>the best part of yourself" -- ??
>The quote is from Nietzsche
Thanks. That helps. I should be able to find the reference now.
The_Sage
>Date written: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 16:16:25 GMT
>MsgID:<3D53EAD0...@attbi.com>
>You guys don't seem to have much charity in your hearts. Kindly
>discussion reaps moments of heightened awareness. Yes, it can be
>difficult when one party is rude, but to respond in kind brings the level
>of discussion down.
Yes it does, but I don't fight the current, I just go with the flow.
>As for scientific, or shall we say, a posteriori proof of Jung et al., I
>have long been impressed with the Myers-Briggs' self assessment instrument
>and wondered if it didn't in fact provide just such evidence. It is a
>humble survey that has as its overriding statement that if you feel the
>results are not valid, they probably are not; yet it is an objective
>measure of subjective responses.
>Perhaps another a posteriori proof is the ability of criminal
>psychologists to create profiles that work.
I like your examples.
>Jung complained often that his disciples misunderstood or corrupted his
>insights.
That is just so right on. In fact, that has been my "agenda" in this
newsgroup all along.
>Pioneers often take roads that mislead them, so only time will
>tell about Jung. In fact, Jung took paths that Freud had missed in his
>pioneering work. Campbell's work was seminal, no doubt, but even his
>supposed best friend entirely understood what he meant when he said,
>"Pursue your bliss." A real understanding and appreciation of the
>archetypes can be gained from reading writers and works such as Robert
>Johnson's HE, SHE, and WE; John Sanfords' THE MAN WHO WRESTLED WITH GOD;
>Erich Neumann's work; and Heinrich Zimmer's THE KING AND THE CORPSE. The
>works and many others examine how story puts into action the deep truths
>of the pshyche. Hans Christian Andersen's "The Shadow" is a much
>neglected and underappreciated work that puts into story and action what
>happens when we don't recognize our dark side.
Jung got quite a few things wrong, especially his beliefs in
paranormal powers. Jung placed quite a bit of faith in JB Rhine but JB
Rhine's experiments were just a big of a flop as Jung's experiment in
astrology.
>A good place to start in understanding archetypes, for me, was to examine
>archetypal actions. A sneeze may be a universal action but it signifies
>little about the psyche (soul). Anger, however, is an action so typical
>of the condition of man that it is an arch type--as are selfishness, and
>love or some lack of love.
Well I wouldn't say anger so much as rage.
>I doubt that anyone can claim to fully understand the psyche. Story seems
>to be the best expression.
As Peter Lemesurier puts it, "But the whole point about the
unconscious is that it lies, by definition, out of reach of words and
language. It is our persistent refusal to go beyond words and language
which actually cuts us off from it. Its normal mode of communication
is a much more flexible, symbolic code such as we experience in
dreams. Magic and occultism, however, was little less an attempt on
the part of the conscious mind to gain forced entry into the
unconscious" (BEYOND ALL BELIEF, by Peter Lemesurier, pg 181)
The_Sage
>Date written: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 04:19:11 GMT
>MsgID:<r259luoj929t0dhic...@4ax.com>
>>A good place to start in understanding archetypes, for me, was to examine
>>archetypal actions. A sneeze may be a universal action but it signifies
>>little about the psyche (soul). Anger, however, is an action so typical
>>of the condition of man that it is an arch type--as are selfishness, and
>>love or some lack of love.
>The best way for any person to understand archetypal themes is to
>start writing down their dreams.
Since archetypes are by definition, beyond consciousness, you won't be
able to see them in your dreams either. Anywhere you see something in
literature labled "archetype" what they actually are talking about is
an ex-archetype.
The_Sage
>Date written: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 21:11:16 GMT
>MsgID:<3D5431...@luckymojo.com>
>>>...why are you going around acting as [if?] your belief [you
>>>believe?] that the collective unconscious hasn't been
>>>scientfically demonstrated....
>>you have unwittingly stumbled upon a correct assessment of
>>my actions. I'm unaware that it had. if you think that it
>>has, please explain how. you have now yourself claimed
>>that it can't be demonstrated. make up your mind, please.
>As far as i know, the existence of the collective unconsious is an
>unproven paranormal theory developed by Carl G. Jung.
Ah, more ignorance. The collective unconscious is not "paranormal"
although Jung wrongly believed there were *some* paranormal *aspects*
to it.
The_Sage
>Date written: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 00:27:22 +0100
>MsgID:<3d544f3b$0$12849$afc3...@news.ukonline.co.uk>
>It is my understanding that the so-called "Collective Unconscious" is an
>unknown part of the mind, from which are generated thoughts etc which are
>not related to ones own personal history but are related to principles which
>apply to humankind genrerally.
>Jung first developed the idea of a "Collective Unconscious" when, going
>through a psychological crisis of his own, he noticed that his dreams were
>dividing into two groups: those related to his own past, and those related
>to mythology generally.
>I personally can think of three postulates to explain this phenomena, of
>which only the third IMHO would remain unscathed by Occam's Razor:
>1. The Collective Unconscious is inherited;
>2. The Collective Unconscious is telepathic;
>3. The Collective Unconscious is a natural tendency of the mind to latch
>onto mythological themes.
Very good.
>>It has never been "scientifically demonstrated" that the collective
>>unconsious exists.
>It has never been scientifically demonstrated that the personal unconscious
>exists.
The *personal* unconscious is called the "subconscious" and there is
no doubt of its existence. The collective unconscious is very
*impersonal* and cannot be physically demonstrated because by nature,
the experimentor cannot be separated from the experiment -- in direct
violation of scientific methodology. What leads one to conclude that a
collective unconscious exists is a logical extension of past behaviors
onto current ones. That doesn't mean it is unscientific, it just means
it isn't physically demonstrable.
But there are exceptions, such as mob mentality, fads, religious
fanaticism, etc.
>It is only presumed to exist because it explains a number of
>phenomena in psychology that would otherwise be inexplicable if it didn't
>exist.
There is no other viable explanation at this time -- which means if
you know anything at all about those phenomena, you wouldn't be able
to logically or factually conclude it most certainly doesn't exist.
The_Sage
>Date written: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 05:13:55 GMT
>MsgID:<ncI49.5396$Ik.9...@typhoon.sonic.net>
You still didn't demonstrate any knowledge of what you are talking
about. You can't argue that someone's methodology or defintions are
"flawed" if you can't even tell us what those definitions or methods
were. Come back when you prepared to be serious instead of prepared to
assert your blind faith dogma.
The_Sage
>Date written: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 17:32:07 -0400
>MsgID:<3D5434D7...@Gate.Of.Forever>
>>As far as i know, the existence of the collective unconsious is an
>>unproven paranormal theory developed by Carl G. Jung.
>That is really wrong!
>The Collective Unconscious is that part of our individual psyche which
>is the same for all people. Have you ever heard of, for example,
>"instincts"?
>Archetypes are defined by Jung as "patterns of instinctive behavior".
Jung uses the word "instinct" in an analogous sort of way, and not in
the literal sense. Whereas an instinct determines an animal's
behavior, an archetype only determines an animals disposition.
"...the position of the archetype would be located beyond the psychic
sphere, ANALOGOUS to the position of physiological instinct, which is
immediately rooted in the stuff of the organism and, with its psychoid
nature, forms the bridge to matter in general" (Vol 8, para 420)
Grrr
wrote:
>>Reply to article by: Grrr <grr...@AMpost.com>
>>Date written: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 04:19:11 GMT
>>MsgID:<r259luoj929t0dhic...@4ax.com>
>
>>>A good place to start in understanding archetypes, for me, was to examine
>>>archetypal actions. A sneeze may be a universal action but it signifies
>>>little about the psyche (soul). Anger, however, is an action so typical
>>>of the condition of man that it is an arch type--as are selfishness, and
>>>love or some lack of love.
>
>>The best way for any person to understand archetypal themes is to
>>start writing down their dreams.
>
>Since archetypes are by definition, beyond consciousness,
perhaps you mean "they, by definition, mean (to invoke) more than
human reasoning per se" which would make much more sense than the idea
that somebody once looked up at the heavens and simply declared
"archetype", and when anybody questioned what he meant by this, he
answered "it is beyond us all", and so the word archetype came into
being.
Since all meaningful words must act as a symbolic anchor for some
defining aspect of consciousness
you won't be
>able to see them in your dreams either.
now you make it sound like "the force" (a'la star wars)
it sounds like you're asking people to consider a definition that is
way beyond the apprehension of any stable human mind, when I though
the purpose of an archetypal theme or image was to help invoke the
opposite response. and to help us better assimilate the heavens.
are they beyond words and symbols?
Anywhere you see something in
>literature labled "archetype" what they actually are talking about is
>an ex-archetype.
i still think that dreams can be an archetypal representation of
aspects in waking consciousness.
Alex Sumner
"The_Sage" <thee...@azrmci.net> wrote in message
news:3d54a603...@news.rmci.net...
>
> There is no other viable explanation at this time -- which means if
> you know anything at all about those phenomena, you wouldn't be able
> to logically or factually conclude it most certainly doesn't exist.
>
Collective Unconscious most certainly doesn't exist.
AS
http://www.geocities.com/alex_sumner/
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.377 / Virus Database: 211 - Release Date: 15/07/2002
nagasiva
d00d! you need serious help on your side of the argument.
I'll try to help you out a little here by surfing the net
and looking for what other people think constitutes
evidence in support of the Collective Unconscious theory
(which I'm fast becoming convinced is a religious dogma!
part of Jungism and the Great World Transcendental Tour):
c'mon everybody it's surfin' Jungfari...
From: ARCHETYPES AND THE COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS - Chapter 1#
Section: THE CONCEPT OF THE COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS1
URL: http://www.geocities.com/nisgore/html/jungArchetypesch1.html
# 3. Method of Proof
#
# ...We must now turn to the question of how the existence of
# archetypes can be proved. Since archetypes are supposed to
# produce certain psychic forms, we must discuss how and where one
# can get hold of the material demonstrating these forms. The main
# source, then, is dreams) which have the advantage of being
# involuntary, spontaneous products of the unconscious psyche and
# are therefore pure products of nature not falsified by any
# conscious purpose. By questioning the individual one can
# ascertain which of the motifs appearing in the dream are known to
# him. From those which are unknown to him we must naturally
# exclude all motifs which might be known to him, as for
# instance-to revert to the case of Leonardo-the vulture symbol. We
# are not sure whether Leonardo took this symbol from Horapollo or
# not, although it would have been perfectly possible for an
# educated person of that time, because in those days artists were
# distinguished for their wide knowledge of the humanities.
# Therefore, although the bird motif is an archetype par
# excellence, its existence in Leonardo's fantasy would still prove
# nothing. Consequently, we must look for motifs which could not
# possibly be knovn to the dreamer arid yet behave functionally in
# his dream in such a manner as to coincide with the functioning of
# the archetype known from historical sources.
#
# Another source for the material we need is to be found in "active
# imagination." By this I mean a sequence of fantasies produced by
# deliberate concentration. I have found that the existence of
# unrealized, unconscious fantasies increases the frequency and
# intensity of dreams, and that when these fantasies are made
# conscious the dreams change their character and become weaker and
# less frequent. From this I have drawn the conclusion that dreams
# often contain fantasies which "want" to become conscious. The
# sources of dreams are often repressed instincts which have a
# natural tendency to influence the conscious mind. In cases of
# this sort, the patient is simply given the task of contemplating
# any one fragment of fantasy that seems significant to him-a
# third to the fifth year. Such material is available in profusion,
# but it is valueless unless one can adduce convincing mythological
# parallels. It does not, of course, suffice simply to connect a
# dream about a snake with the mythological occurrence of snakes,
# for who is to guarantee that the functional meaning of the snake
# in the dream is the same as in the mythological setting? In order
# to draw a valid parallel, it is necessary to know the functional]
# meaning of the individual symbol, and then to find out whether
# the apparently parallel mythological symbol has a similar context
# and therefore the same functional meaning. Establishing such
# facts not only requires lengthy and wearisome researches, but is
# also an ungrateful subject for demonstration. As the symbols must
# not be torn out of their context, one has to launch forth into
# exhaustive descriptions, personal as well as symbological, and
# this is practically impossible in the framework of a lecture. I
# have repeatedly tried it at the risk of sending one half of my
# audience to sleep....
dreams d00d. dream on.
and
From: mythos
URL: http://www.openspaceworld.com/mythos.htm
# ...There is of course some thought and evidence that mythos
# actually begins much before the origin of any particular
# organization in the collective unconscious of the species (Jung)
# and that it first "sees the light of day" as an activity of the
# right brain.(See Julian Jaynes, "The Origin of Consciousness in
# the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", Houghton Mifflin, 1976.)
d00d! you've apparently enlisted Jaynes to help you out!
and
From: Neo-Freudians
URL: http://peace.saumag.edu/faculty/Kardas/Courses/GPWeiten/C12Personality/NeoFreud.html
# the collective unconscious aroused much controversy. Jung,
# especially late in life, developed an interest in universal
# symbols. He felt they could be used as evidence for the
# existence of the collective unconscious. He described the
# mandala as one of those symbols. Mandalas consist of a
# combination of a circle and a cross. Jung did find mandalas
# in cultures around the world, but simpler explanations,
# such as development of children's progressive ability to
# draw crossed lines and circles, may suffice to explain
# their prevalence.
first example: "mandala" -- alternative theory explained.
and interestingly
From: Abstracts of the Collected Works of C.G. Jung
URL: http://www.cgjungpage.org/abvol8.html
# ...Evidence for
# the existence of the collective unconscious is found in several
# clinical cases; it is also reflected in the existence of several
# religious beliefs, especially in early and medieval Christianity.
beliefs, not diagrams, like...
From: The Heart of History by William Van Dusen Wishard
URL: http://www.cgjungpage.org/articles/wishardhist.html
# As Jung studied the history of the mind, he saw patterns that
# appeared to be common to every culture ever known. As Anthony
# Stevens points out in The Two Million-Year-Old Self, all human
# communities, however "primitive," have always had laws about
# property, rules governing courtship and marriage, rules of
# etiquette prescribing forms of greetings and modes of address,
# cooperative labor, gift-giving, the performance of funeral rites,
# the recital of myths and legends, procedures for settling
# disputes, taboos relating to food and incest, dream
# interpretation, etc.
#
# Jung defined all such patterns of behavior as evidence of what he
# termed "archetypes," or universal motifs stemming from the
# collective unconscious.
so we can see what Jung thought was evidence. and better yet
From: Symbolism.Org: Symbolism of Popular Culture: The Burning Mirror
URL: http://www.symbolism.org/writing/books/spc/burning/page3.html
# The territory of symbolism and the context of the world it
# represents lays both before and behind us ready for modern
# explorers to bring new tools and methods to its exploration. The
# collective unconscious theory of Carl Jung held great promise as
# a path towards this elusive context. But today, collective
# unconscious is at the center of a revisioning attack on Jungian
# psychology centering around the concept of hidden memory or
# cryptomnesia. The attack is based on recent work by scholars such
# as John Kerr and Richard Noll arguing that much of the key
# evidence for the existence of the collective unconscious is taken
# from work with psychotics and mediums during the early years of
# the development of psychoanalysis. The images these patients
# reported were from materials in the culture of the time they had
# seen and forgotten rather than from ancient documents and myths
# they could not possibably have seen.
again the weak spot appears to be reliance on dreams. here is
clear reference to the Solar-Phallic Man hoax.
and
check out this guy (no evidence, but he calls Noll's observation
the low water mark on Jungian theories, pointing out specific
errors in Noll's expression):
Cult Fictions
URL: http://www.cgjungpage.org/articles/sonu1.html
am I helping you out any, Sage? :>
Seyfert-1
naga...@luckymojo.com
nagasiva
>"The_Sage" <thee...@azrmci.net> wrote in message
>news:3d54a603...@news.rmci.net...
>>
>> There is no other viable explanation at this time -- which means if
>> you know anything at all about those phenomena, you wouldn't be able
>> to logically or factually conclude it most certainly doesn't exist.
>
>As a matter of logic itself, one cannot logically or factually
>conclude the Collective Unconscious most certainly doesn't exist.
c'mon youse guyz!
substitute for any A:
one cannot logically or factually conclude
A
most certainly doesn't exist.
hopefully we at least agree here.
on the other hand, with scientists and other rational
folks, we can agree on 'reasonable suppositions which it
would be insulting or ridiculous to oppose for long'.
Seyfert-1
naga...@luckymojo.com
Tom
> >Reply to article by: "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net>
> >Date written: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 08:38:36 -0700
> >MsgID:<jkR49.11$%L4.2...@news.uswest.net>
>
> >>How can I have an advanced discussion with someone who doesn't even
> >>know the basics, as you obviously don't know?
>
> >Apparently, anyone who disagrees with "sage" must be ignorant. We all
know
> >that informed people agree on everything.
>
> I noticed you have no facts for or against this "debate" either.
Except for the ones I posted, of course.
> How can you say you know something is false when you don't
> even know what it is?
Apparently, anyone who disagrees with "sage" must be ignorant. We all know
Tom
> >Reply to article by: catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com>
> >Date written: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 21:11:16 GMT
> >MsgID:<3D5431...@luckymojo.com>
>
> >>>...why are you going around acting as [if?] your belief [you
> >>>believe?] that the collective unconscious hasn't been
> >>>scientfically demonstrated....
>
> >>you have unwittingly stumbled upon a correct assessment of
> >>my actions. I'm unaware that it had. if you think that it
> >>has, please explain how. you have now yourself claimed
> >>that it can't be demonstrated. make up your mind, please.
>
> >As far as i know, the existence of the collective unconsious is an
> >unproven paranormal theory developed by Carl G. Jung.
>
> Ah, more ignorance.
Apparently, anyone who disagrees with "sage" must be ignorant. We all know
Tom
> >Reply to article by: Seyfert-1 <naga...@yronwode.SPAMcom>
> >Date written: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 05:13:55 GMT
> >MsgID:<ncI49.5396$Ik.9...@typhoon.sonic.net>
>
> You still didn't demonstrate any knowledge of what you are talking
> about.
Apparently, anyone who disagrees with "sage" must be ignorant. We all know
frank green
The_Sage wrote:
Or wrath, as in "Sing, Goddess of wrath of Peleus' son Achille and how it
wrought devastation thousandfold upon the Acheans."
>
>
> >I doubt that anyone can claim to fully understand the psyche. Story seems
> >to be the best expression.
>
> As Peter Lemesurier puts it, "But the whole point about the
> unconscious is that it lies, by definition, out of reach of words and
> language. It is our persistent refusal to go beyond words and language
> which actually cuts us off from it. Its normal mode of communication
> is a much more flexible, symbolic code such as we experience in
> dreams. Magic and occultism, however, was little less an attempt on
> the part of the conscious mind to gain forced entry into the
> unconscious" (BEYOND ALL BELIEF, by Peter Lemesurier, pg 181)
>
Excellent quotation! Thanks. Dream is to the individual as story (significant
story, I would add) is to society; i.e., an expression of the unconscious.
That not everyone recognizes those expressions for what they are would indicate
our inability to know the unconscious except in art.
frank green
The_Sage wrote:
Or wrath, as in "Sing, Goddess of wrath of Peleus' son Achilles and how it
wrought devastation thousandfold upon the Acheans."
>
>
> >I doubt that anyone can claim to fully understand the psyche. Story seems
> >to be the best expression.
>
> As Peter Lemesurier puts it, "But the whole point about the
> unconscious is that it lies, by definition, out of reach of words and
> language. It is our persistent refusal to go beyond words and language
> which actually cuts us off from it. Its normal mode of communication
> is a much more flexible, symbolic code such as we experience in
> dreams. Magic and occultism, however, was little less an attempt on
> the part of the conscious mind to gain forced entry into the
> unconscious" (BEYOND ALL BELIEF, by Peter Lemesurier, pg 181)
>
Excellent quotation! Thanks. Dream is to the individual as story (significant
story, I would add) is to society; i.e., an expression of the unconscious.
That not everyone recognizes those expressions for what they are would indicate
our inability to know the unconscious except in art.
>
frank green
The_Sage wrote:
> >Reply to article by: Joe Cosby <joec...@mindspring.com>
> >Date written: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:38:03 -0700
> >MsgID:<cur7luc5kdeq0po1f...@4ax.com>
>
> >>"Be careful when casting out your demons, lest you cast out
> >>the best part of yourself" -- ??
>
> >The quote is from Nietzsche
>
> Thanks. That helps. I should be able to find the reference now.
>
> The Sage
>
I think these demons are the Harpies turned Eumenides, which haunt and
pursue us to produce art, the happy product of torment.
frank green
Alex Sumner wrote:
> "The_Sage" <thee...@azrmci.net> wrote in message
> news:3d54a603...@news.rmci.net...
> >
> > There is no other viable explanation at this time -- which means if
> > you know anything at all about those phenomena, you wouldn't be able
> > to logically or factually conclude it most certainly doesn't exist.
> >
> As a matter of logic itself, one cannot logically or factually conclude the
> Collective Unconscious most certainly doesn't exist.
As in an ontological proof?
The_Sage
>MsgID:<W%859.3$lZ2....@news.uswest.net>
>> I noticed you have no facts for or against this "debate" either.
>Except for the ones I posted, of course.
Nope, wrong again.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://home.rmci.net/thesage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
=============================================================
The_Sage
>MsgID:<3D55422C...@attbi.com>
>> >>"Be careful when casting out your demons, lest you cast out
>> >>the best part of yourself" -- ??
>I think these demons are the Harpies turned Eumenides, which haunt and
>pursue us to produce art, the happy product of torment.
And you call that the best part of yourself?
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://home.rmci.net/thesage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
The_Sage
>Date written: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 10:10:33 GMT
>MsgID:<tE559.5950$Ik.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>
>d00d! you need serious help on your side of the argument.
Is there another side yet? I'm the only one supporting my agrument
with quotes from Jung or simple logic...the most the rest of these
dildos can do is repeat their mantra, "I don't know, I don't believe,
and I don't want to know the facts because I already have my mind made
up". I hope you do better.
>I'll try to help you out a little here by surfing the net
>and looking for what other people think constitutes
>evidence in support of the Collective Unconscious theory
>(which I'm fast becoming convinced is a religious dogma!
>part of Jungism and the Great World Transcendental Tour):
>From: ARCHETYPES AND THE COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS - Chapter 1#
> Section: THE CONCEPT OF THE COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS1
>URL: http://www.geocities.com/nisgore/html/jungArchetypesch1.html
># 3. Method of Proof
># ...We must now turn to the question of how the existence of
># archetypes can be proved.
The subject line says "evidence supporting collective unconscious",
not "evidence supporting archetypes".
># The main
># source, then, is dreams) which have the advantage of being
># involuntary, spontaneous products of the unconscious psyche and
># are therefore pure products of nature not falsified by any
># conscious purpose.
This is proof by assertion. You aren't going to help my case by
quoting opinion instead of facts.
>From: mythos
>URL: http://www.openspaceworld.com/mythos.htm
># ...There is of course some thought and evidence that mythos
># actually begins much before the origin of any particular
># organization in the collective unconscious of the species (Jung)
># and that it first "sees the light of day" as an activity of the
># right brain.(See Julian Jaynes, "The Origin of Consciousness in
># the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", Houghton Mifflin, 1976.)
This is horrible! So far no one has quoted Jung or his research yet...
>From: Neo-Freudians
>URL: http://peace.saumag.edu/faculty/Kardas/Courses/GPWeiten/C12Personality/NeoFreud.html
># the collective unconscious aroused much controversy. Jung,
># especially late in life, developed an interest in universal
># symbols. He felt they could be used as evidence for the
># existence of the collective unconscious. He described the
># mandala as one of those symbols. Mandalas consist of a
># combination of a circle and a cross. Jung did find mandalas
># in cultures around the world, but simpler explanations,
># such as development of children's progressive ability to
># draw crossed lines and circles, may suffice to explain
># their prevalence.
I'm sorry, but your research is just total crap.
You people really need to learn to get your information firsthand
instead of via hearsay on a web page.
But just for giggles, tell me how *you* define the collective
unconscious as Jung gave it?
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://home.rmci.net/thesage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
The_Sage
>MsgID:<3d54e615$0$5106$afc3...@news.ukonline.co.uk>
>>There is no other viable explanation at this time -- which means if
>>you know anything at all about those phenomena, you wouldn't be able
>>to logically or factually conclude it most certainly doesn't exist.
>As a matter of logic itself, one cannot logically or factually conclude the
>Collective Unconscious most certainly doesn't exist.
Well if that were true, I wouldn't even give it a second thought. But
it isn't a matter of logic itself, it is corroborated by the history
of myths.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://home.rmci.net/thesage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
The_Sage
>MsgID:<EI559.5951$Ik.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>
>>As a matter of logic itself, one cannot logically or factually
>>conclude the Collective Unconscious most certainly doesn't exist.
>substitute for any A:
> one cannot logically or factually conclude
> A
> most certainly doesn't exist.
>hopefully we at least agree here.
We most certainly can logically and factually conclude "A" most
certainly doesn't exist, if they only place it "exists" is in your
imagination. That is the old illogical fallacy of "if you can't
disprove it, it must be true". Can you disprove the existence of
Smurfs? According to your "logic" they must exist because no one can
disprove they exist. Not only that,the Smurfs have been made into a
movie and according to the "logic" you gave to us from one of your
other posts, if you can make it into a movie, it must be real.
>on the other hand, with scientists and other rational
>folks, we can agree on 'reasonable suppositions which it
>would be insulting or ridiculous to oppose for long'.
That is a really smurfy agrument you've got going here...I like it
even better than your "I don't want to know the facts about the
collective unconscious because I already have my mind made up I don't
want to beleive in it". Smurf-tabulous!
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://home.rmci.net/thesage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
The_Sage
>MsgID:<S0959.4$lZ2....@news.uswest.net>
Apparently, Tom still has no facts and therefore no intelligent
rebuttal or counter-argument.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://home.rmci.net/thesage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
The_Sage
>MsgID:<e1959.5$lZ2....@news.uswest.net>
Apparently, Tom still has no facts and therefore no intelligent
rebuttal or counter-argument.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://home.rmci.net/thesage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
*Philip*
>
> >Reply to article by: *Philip* <Ph...@Gate.Of.Forever>
> >Date written: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 17:32:07 -0400
> >MsgID:<3D5434D7...@Gate.Of.Forever>
>
> >>As far as i know, the existence of the collective unconsious is an
> >>unproven paranormal theory developed by Carl G. Jung.
>
> >That is really wrong!
>
> >The Collective Unconscious is that part of our individual psyche which
> >is the same for all people. Have you ever heard of, for example,
> >"instincts"?
>
> >Archetypes are defined by Jung as "patterns of instinctive behavior".
>
> Jung uses the word "instinct" in an analogous sort of way, and not in
> the literal sense. Whereas an instinct determines an animal's
> behavior, an archetype only determines an animals disposition.
>
> "...the position of the archetype would be located beyond the psychic
> sphere, ANALOGOUS to the position of physiological instinct, which is
> immediately rooted in the stuff of the organism and, with its psychoid
> nature, forms the bridge to matter in general" (Vol 8, para 420)
Yes, indeed. There's more to this instinct/archetype connection.
I find it very naive of people to think there is only instinctive
physical action and no such thing as instinctive thought.
The archetype is an inherited and instinctive way of having emotions,
ideas, and representations, instinct is the inherited way of acting
physically. The two are connected. Physical behavior according to a
pattern would be instinct, and concomitant inner representations,
emotions, ideas, thoughts, visions, etc are manifestations of an
archetype. We have inherited a structural something which makes us act
and think in certain ways. There is a physical aspect and a
psychological aspect to instincts.
--
齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged
to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't.
-Samuel Clemens
__________________________
_ __
_| |_ \ \
/ \ _ \ \ _ ______
( (| |) ) | > \| ( __ )
\_ _/| | / ^ \ || || |
|_| \_)_/ \_\_)_||_|
__________________________
P H I L I P
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, thee...@azrmci.net (The_Sage) laughed madly, then
wrote:
>>Reply to article by: nagasiva <naga...@yronwode.SPAMcom>
>>Date written: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 10:15:00 GMT
>>MsgID:<EI559.5951$Ik.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>
>
>>>As a matter of logic itself, one cannot logically or factually
>>>conclude the Collective Unconscious most certainly doesn't exist.
>
>>substitute for any A:
>
>> one cannot logically or factually conclude
>> A
>> most certainly doesn't exist.
>
>>hopefully we at least agree here.
>
>We most certainly can logically and factually conclude "A" most
>certainly doesn't exist, if they only place it "exists" is in your
>imagination. That is the old illogical fallacy of "if you can't
>disprove it, it must be true". Can you disprove the existence of
>Smurfs? According to your "logic" they must exist because no one can
>disprove they exist. Not only that,the Smurfs have been made into a
>movie and according to the "logic" you gave to us from one of your
>other posts, if you can make it into a movie, it must be real.
>
We can also prove logically, fairly simply, that anything you can
comment on exists first in your mind.
Oh dear, this logical rigor thing is more difficult than it seemed,
isn't it?
>>on the other hand, with scientists and other rational
>>folks, we can agree on 'reasonable suppositions which it
>>would be insulting or ridiculous to oppose for long'.
>
>That is a really smurfy agrument you've got going here...I like it
>even better than your "I don't want to know the facts about the
>collective unconscious because I already have my mind made up I don't
>want to beleive in it". Smurf-tabulous!
>
>The Sage
>
>=============================================================
>My Home Page : http://home.rmci.net/thesage
>
>"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
>out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
>=============================================================
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"Who cares what you think?" - President George W. Bush, July 4, 2001
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=20010808192029.17667.00003400%40ng-cn1.aol.com
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
The_Sage
>MsgID:<4d89lucgh91bvd11b...@4ax.com>
>>Since archetypes are by definition, beyond consciousness,
>perhaps you mean "they, by definition, mean (to invoke) more than
>human reasoning per se" which would make much more sense than the idea
>that somebody once looked up at the heavens and simply declared
>"archetype", and when anybody questioned what he meant by this, he
>answered "it is beyond us all", and so the word archetype came into
>being.
Nobody has been giving out any ideas like that, this idea only exists
in your mind.
>Since all meaningful words must act as a symbolic anchor for some
>defining aspect of consciousness
>>you won't be able to see them in your dreams either.
>now you make it sound like "the force" (a'la star wars)
Not being able to see them in your dreams is like the "force a'la Star
Wars? That isn't even a remotely logical derivation of anything anyone
has ever said in this thread.
>it sounds like you're asking people to consider a definition that is
>way beyond the apprehension of any stable human mind, when I though
>the purpose of an archetypal theme or image was to help invoke the
>opposite response. and to help us better assimilate the heavens.
If you don't understand something, feel free to ask instead of blaming
everybody else for your ignorance. All you've done is jump to
conclusions before you have all the facts.
>are they beyond words and symbols?
Actually, they are beyond words and images. Words and images are
products of consciousness, therefore if it is unconscious, it *must*
be beyond words and images.
>>Anywhere you see something in
>>literature labled "archetype" what they actually are talking about is
>>an ex-archetype.
>i still think that dreams can be an archetypal representation of
>aspects in waking consciousness.
If they are aspects of our consciousness, then by definition of the
word "archetype", they cannot be archetypes. When archetypes become
conscious, they become abilities and cease to exist as archetypes.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://home.rmci.net/thesage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
The_Sage
>MsgID:<3D554128...@attbi.com>
>>>A good place to start in understanding archetypes, for me, was to examine
>>>archetypal actions. A sneeze may be a universal action but it signifies
>>>little about the psyche (soul). Anger, however, is an action so typical
>>>of the condition of man that it is an arch type--as are selfishness, and
>>>love or some lack of love.
>>Well I wouldn't say anger so much as rage.
>Or wrath, as in "Sing, Goddess of wrath of Peleus' son Achille and how it
>wrought devastation thousandfold upon the Acheans."
Exactly. Any out-of-control emotion is an expression of an archetype
-- which one we don't know and may never know.
>>>I doubt that anyone can claim to fully understand the psyche. Story seems
>>>to be the best expression.
>>As Peter Lemesurier puts it, "But the whole point about the
>>unconscious is that it lies, by definition, out of reach of words and
>>language. It is our persistent refusal to go beyond words and language
>>which actually cuts us off from it. Its normal mode of communication
>>is a much more flexible, symbolic code such as we experience in
>>dreams. Magic and occultism, however, was little less an attempt on
>>the part of the conscious mind to gain forced entry into the
>>unconscious" (BEYOND ALL BELIEF, by Peter Lemesurier, pg 181)
>Excellent quotation! Thanks. Dream is to the individual as story (significant
>story, I would add) is to society; i.e., an expression of the unconscious.
>That not everyone recognizes those expressions for what they are would indicate
>our inability to know the unconscious except in art.
Yes, art and religion are the main ways to know the unconscious, but
don't forget that what we are knowing in this case is always the
unconscious of the *past* and not the present. Our present unconscious
is unknown.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://home.rmci.net/thesage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
catherine yronwode
>
> catherine yronwode wrote:
> > As far as i know, the existence of the collective unconsious is an
> > unproven paranormal theory developed by Carl G. Jung.
>
> That is really wrong!
>
> The Collective Unconscious is that part of our individual psyche
The psyche is an unproven paranormal structure that is linked to the
mind or body. It is not congruent with "mind" or "mentality" but the wod
"spirit" is sometimes used interchangeably with it.
> which is the same for all people.
A portion of an unseeable paranormal structure which is the same for all
people remains unprevable and unseeable.
> Have you ever heard of, for example, "instincts"?
Yes. Instincts are patterns *behaviours* that are heritable.
The collective unconscious is not a *behaviour.*
> Archetypes are defined by Jung as "patterns of instinctive behavior".
Really? If he defined archetypes as "patterns of behaviour" then i
suspect he was mish-mashing thoughts and actions rather
indiscriminately.
Please understand that i have nothing against a belief in or personal
application of the theory of the collective unconscious. I myself have
opted out of it.
Being Jewish by birth, it was easy for me to forego the Jungian
belief-set, since Jung said in 1925 that Jews were not part of his
theoretcal construct anyway.
But truth to tell, it was not Jung's racial exclusionism that drove me
from his school of theought -- it was my wide reading as a child. I kept
finding historical mythology that flatly contradicted his theory of
"universal" archetypes.
For instance, Jung based the whole edicface of the "collective
unconscious" on the "Solar Man" data (which Noll has demonstrated was a
deliberate hoax on Jung's part, but, of course, i did not know that
then). Taking the Solar Man paradigm at face value, i was led by the
nose from one Solar-Male and Lunar-Female deity to another as Jungian
promoters like Erich Neumann and Joseph Campbell presented image after
image of Solar gods and Lunar goddesses to "prove" their "cvollective
unconscious: hypothesis.
But the Jews see the Sun as a FEMALE and the moon as a MALE, and i KNEW
that.
(That may explain why Jung felt that Jews were not part of the
"collective unconscious" when he lectured in 1925 that Jews did not
partake of "Aryan blood and soil." -- but sure, sure, we all know Jung
dropped this outright anti-Jewish angle after World War Two -- so let's
get back to the main point -- the Jews see the Sun as a FEMALE and the
moon as a MALE.)
So, as a kid, here i was reading this Jung stuff and wondering what was
up with the Jews, how come they didn;t match the theory ... and then i
ran across a nice little book of Japanese mythology in my parents' book
store -- and i learned that the Japenese also see the Sun as a FEMALE
and the moon as a MALE. But they were on the same side of Warld War Two
as the "Aryan" (so-called) Germans, so that made no sense to me at all
-- because how could they be "Aryans" if they saw the Sun as FEMALE,
just like the Jews?????
Well, a few years later i ran across the works of Samuel Noah Kramer,
who had embarked on a translation of every Sumerian text in the world --
and watcha know? The Sumerians saw the Sun as a FEMALE and the moon as a
MALE. In fact, in their mythology, the Moon was the father of both the
Sun and of Venus.
So now i understood that the Jews were not merely rank outsiders to
"Aryan" and European mythology -- they were part of a long-standing
Middle Eastern tradition in which the Moon was the father and the Sun
was his son and his daughter Venus was The Queen of Heaven.
I didn't have to hypothesize that the Japanese were part of some
bizarre Sumerian-Jewish lineage to explain their female Solar deity and
male lunar deity. I just had to apply Occam's Razor:
There are two sexual genders and two major lights in the sky. In order
to create a mythology, emergent human cultures basically assigned a
gender to each of the major lights by a process almost as random as
flipping a coin. The only "universal" constant was that they assigned
one gender to the sun and the other gender to the moon.
In time, some of those cultures dominated others and some were dispersed
as minority populations. At any given point in time, one can draw a map
of areas where the sun is male and where the sun is female and that's
all one will have -- a MAP. It will not be a statement about the nature
of the "psyche" or the "collective unconsious" -- it will be a MAP of
cukltural movement. Period.
And where was Jung's archetypal Solar Man -- his proof of the "collecive
unconscious" -- in all of this? Well, as far as i was concerned, it
looked like map, too -- a map of the distribution of the Iranian (Aryan)
people, who long ago flipped their coin and came up worshipping a male
Sun ... and eventually dominated a rather large territory.
Controlling a lot of squares on the game board does not mean your
mythology is "universal." And as long as the Japanese and Jews exist, no
one will be able to demonstrate the "universality" of "archetypes" that
"instinctively" spring from the "collective unconscious."
cat yronwode
*Philip*
You are putting the cart before the horse. Jung started with instincts
and libido theory then moved to archetype theory to describe the
structure of the psyche. As everyone knows he said the psyche is
composed of conscious, ego, unconscious, shadow and archetypes as the
structural elements of the psyche. The fact that his theory can provide
a framework to attempt understanding of the paranormal only shows a
curious strength of his theory.
You are also confusing the archetype (instinctive template) with the
personal things that the archetype attaches (constellates, organizes) to
itself (such as the moon and sun). It is, I agree, very hard if not
*impossible*, to separate the personal societal from the generally
human. For example what precisely is the patriarchal contamination of
various theories of society and psychology?
I am interested in this "Solar Man" hoax! Where exactly in his
writings, which book, is this "Solar Man" put forward?
Cheers.
frank green
The_Sage wrote:
> >Reply to article by: frank green <fran...@attbi.com>
> >Date written: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 16:42:37 GMT
> >MsgID:<3D55422C...@attbi.com>
>
> >> >>"Be careful when casting out your demons, lest you cast out
> >> >>the best part of yourself" -- ??
>
> >I think these demons are the Harpies turned Eumenides, which haunt and
> >pursue us to produce art, the happy product of torment.
>
> And you call that the best part of yourself?
>
> The Sage
>
When it produces art, our only chance at perfection, yes, of course.
frank green
>
VERY GOOD, PHILIP. THANKS.
frank green
catherine yronwode wrote:
Poor girl. You miss out on so much.
nagasiva
Alex Sumner if memory serves (attribution snipped by Sage):
>>>As a matter of logic itself, one cannot logically or factually
>>>conclude the Collective Unconscious most certainly doesn't exist.
Seyfert-1:
>>substitute for any A:
>> one cannot logically or factually conclude
>> A
>> most certainly doesn't exist.
>>hopefully we at least agree here.
thee...@azrmci.net (The_Sage):
>We most certainly can logically and factually conclude "A" most
>certainly doesn't exist, if they only place it "exists" is in your
>imagination.
tautologies are by nature neglibly supportable, agreed.
> That is the old illogical fallacy of "if you can't disprove it,
> it must be true". Can you disprove the existence of Smurfs?
disproving the existence of something is by grammar different
than proving their non-existence, but I'll take your statement
the way you've laid it out.
I can point to no credible evidence to their existence outside
the minds and products of minds associated with these fictions.
their limited existence is external, they have no 'selfhood'.
> According to your "logic" they must exist because no one can
> disprove they exist.
false. you haven't understood the logic. we have no ability to
prove that something doesn't exist. if you think you have one,
please demonstrate it, bring it out for us to examine.
> Not only that,the Smurfs have been made into a movie and
> according to the "logic" you gave to us from one of your
> other posts, if you can make it into a movie, it must be real.
it is the product of imagination and as such constitutes an
example implying the existence of the imagination. you cannot
twist Tom's excellent analogy, refuting your claims that the
the Collective Unconscious and its products are somehow of the
same substance (you spoke strangely of 'some imaginary place')
and therefore even the products can't be observed, into some-
thing it is not. perhaps you merely misunderstood Tom, but he
seemed very clear as you quoted him.
>>on the other hand, with scientists and other rational
>>folks, we can agree on 'reasonable suppositions which it
>>would be insulting or ridiculous to oppose for long'.
>That is a really smurfy agrument you've got going here...
thanks! where I come from there was much joking about Smurfs
and Purple Dinosaurs as objects of torment and violence.
I think we got too much sugar while growing up or something. :>
you really need the pablum, huh? ok....
proving that something doesn't exist involves a
level of certitude which cannot obtain outside
mystical subjective states and other axiomatic
or confined knowledge systems.
it is of a fundamentally different character than
proving that something does in fact exist (by
bringing it forth or pointing to it directly).
this is it in a nutshell and is covered by reliable
philosophers of science, such as Popper and others,
if memory serves. the objection by Alex and my attempt
to get this out of the way was merely something basic
which most philosophers of science already admit (on
account of its logical persuasiveness -- it seems to
be true on its face), though I'm happy to hear how
you think this perspective and argument is flawed. thanks!
if you think you have a means of proving that something
doesn't exist, anything, please bring it out for us to
examine and apply. you may convert us to your cult! ;>
Stephen J. Gould (peace be upon him) resolved this in
an eloquent way, confirming that the extremity of the
claim ought be the standard by which proof need appear,
and that general agreements about what is rational to
maintain can be arranged aforehand and left behind as a
precursor to true scientific and empirical examinations.
Seyfert-1
naga...@luckymojo.com
Seyfert-1
*Philip* <Ph...@Gate.Of.Forever>:
>Yes, indeed. There's more to this instinct/archetype connection.
>I find it very naive of people to think there is only instinctive
>physical action and no such thing as instinctive thought.
I've heard of heredity being associated with personality, and this
bears prolonged examination in the field of psychology. whether the
character of thought is itself shaped by inherited structures does
not appear in contention, though it is certainly opposable.
>The archetype is an inherited and instinctive way of having emotions,
>ideas, and representations, instinct is the inherited way of acting
>physically. The two are connected. Physical behavior according to a
>pattern would be instinct, and concomitant inner representations,
>emotions, ideas, thoughts, visions, etc are manifestations of an
>archetype. We have inherited a structural something which makes us
>act and think in certain ways. There is a physical aspect and a
>psychological aspect to instincts.
interesting, so you tie it all into instinct as it manifests in
the human animal. nice. strains of species proliferation would
thereafter exhibit their particular genetic-marker thought
patterns and tendencies. I can see support for this. it does
not require universalism or collectivity and may be supported
along kinship lines (cultural facets manifesting in hereditary
lines' behaviours and experiences).
I'm not sure what can be extracted from this perspective about
religion or gods or archetypes, however, outside studies of
specific hereditary lines and their expressions/experiences.
Seyfert-1
naga...@luckymojo.com
Seyfert-1
thee...@azrmci.net (The_Sage):
> ...what we are knowing in this case is always the unconscious
> of the *past* and not the present. Our present unconscious
> is unknown.
this is a very valuable distinction, Sage. by definitions of
the terms "unconscious" and "conscious" we are discussing
only material in the past (because the present experience
only includes conscious, rather than unconscious material).
inference and implication may thereafter be abstracted so
as to get a fix on what unconscious structures may exist.
you seem to agree about this, and that direct apprehension
of these structures is by definition subject to a different
category of experience than is covered by your language.
as you present it this is doctrine, though we have no real
convincing argument from you that we should adopt your
language. it is possible, for example, that one may make
varying levels of successful *approaches to the experience
of these underlying structures*, very much like looking
with a flashlight where typically darkness lies. what we
may see when looking will not be that darkness without
our light, agreed. what will it be? will it show us some
reflection of what is there when there is no flashlight?
I'm unsure that you are addressing such questions.
Seyfert-1
naga...@luckymojo.com
The_Sage
>MsgID:<3D557B...@luckymojo.com>
>>The Collective Unconscious is that part of our individual psyche
>The psyche is an unproven paranormal structure that is linked to the
>mind or body. It is not congruent with "mind" or "mentality" but the wod
>"spirit" is sometimes used interchangeably with it.
You have no clue what you are talking about. If the psyche were
unproven, then it could not be linked to anything. And you are
obviously confusing psychic with psyche -- they are not the same
thing. One is an archaic term for "the mind" and the other is a form
of the "paranormal".
As for spirit as Jung used it, "The world of gods and spirits is truly
'nothing but' the collective unconscious inside me" (Vol 11, para
857])
The Sage
The_Sage
>MsgID:<3D5589F8...@Gate.Of.Forever>
>You are putting the cart before the horse. Jung started with instincts
>and libido theory then moved to archetype theory to describe the
>structure of the psyche. As everyone knows he said the psyche is
>composed of conscious, ego, unconscious, shadow and archetypes as the
>structural elements of the psyche. The fact that his theory can provide
>a framework to attempt understanding of the paranormal only shows a
>curious strength of his theory.
Yes, it was. You have to admire someone who didn't ignore data like
most scientists still do today in regards to people's interest in
religion and the paranormal, since, as Jung pointed out, anything that
people are interested in teaches us something about their psychology.
>You are also confusing the archetype (instinctive template) with the
>personal things that the archetype attaches (constellates, organizes) to
>itself (such as the moon and sun). It is, I agree, very hard if not
>*impossible*, to separate the personal societal from the generally
>human.
That is very easy: If it isn't impersonal, then it isn't collective.
>For example what precisely is the patriarchal contamination of
>various theories of society and psychology?
What makes you think that partiarchal contents are collective anymore?
>I am interested in this "Solar Man" hoax! Where exactly in his
>writings, which book, is this "Solar Man" put forward?
Solar Man hoax? Haha!
The_Sage
>MsgID:<mboaluofrvvmf5q22...@4ax.com>
>We can also prove logically, fairly simply, that anything you can
>comment on exists first in your mind.
We were not discussing what we could *comment* on, but what actually
exists or not.
>Oh dear, this logical rigor thing is more difficult than it seemed,
>isn't it?
Oh no, it is really rather easy. Just have to watch your pees and
ques.
Grrr
wrote:
>>Reply to article by: Grrr <grr...@AMpost.com>
>>Date written: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 06:02:01 GMT
>>MsgID:<4d89lucgh91bvd11b...@4ax.com>
>
>>>Since archetypes are by definition, beyond consciousness,
>
>>perhaps you mean "they, by definition, mean (to invoke) more than
>>human reasoning per se" which would make much more sense than the idea
>>that somebody once looked up at the heavens and simply declared
>>"archetype", and when anybody questioned what he meant by this, he
>>answered "it is beyond us all", and so the word archetype came into
>>being.
>
>Nobody has been giving out any ideas like that, this idea only exists
>in your mind.
but it gives you an idea of how reasonable or not my ideas are when my
mind is trying to make sense of what you are saying.
>>Since all meaningful words must act as a symbolic anchor for some
>>defining aspect of consciousness
>
>>>you won't be able to see them in your dreams either.
>
>>now you make it sound like "the force" (a'la star wars)
>
>Not being able to see them in your dreams is like the "force a'la Star
>Wars? That isn't even a remotely logical derivation of anything anyone
>has ever said in this thread.
I haven't read most of the messages in this thread. I merely draw from
my own understand of me here now.
>>it sounds like you're asking people to consider a definition that is
>>way beyond the apprehension of any stable human mind, when I though
>>the purpose of an archetypal theme or image was to help invoke the
>>opposite response. and to help us better assimilate the heavens.
>
>If you don't understand something, feel free to ask instead of blaming
>everybody else for your ignorance. All you've done is jump to
>conclusions before you have all the facts.
You say that like you're knowledge is boundless and so the process by
which you derive your answers is clearly and obviously fault free,
when the most obvious thing to me, is that your replies are full of a
type of reasoning that is unreconcilable to my mind.
basically, you seem to be tripping over the use of a few very
rudimentary words and perhaps a few logical terms, and don't seem to
want to rectify those errors.
and my asking about how you mentally reconcile your replies, is based
on that error.
it's not my lot to push you out of the rut you're in.
If having all this in the form of questions is all you want, i can
happily oblige and humor myself from here on by throwing rhetoric at
you. If that's how you want things.
But that's not what i'm about.
>>are they beyond words and symbols?
>
>Actually, they are beyond words and images. Words and images are
>products of consciousness, therefore if it is unconscious, it *must*
>be beyond words and images.
then how do you justify the use of the word "archetype" if there are
no words or images (let alone any consciousness) to delineate it in
human terms for the human mind to comprehend?
Doesn't that kinda contradict the very application of and reason for
having words?
>>>Anywhere you see something in
>>>literature labled "archetype" what they actually are talking about is
>>>an ex-archetype.
>
>>i still think that dreams can be an archetypal representation of
>>aspects in waking consciousness.
>
>If they are aspects of our consciousness, then by definition of the
>word "archetype", they cannot be archetypes.
by the same token, by the very meaning of the word "word", what you
have been saying an archetype is cannot make it, by your terms, any
conventional form of word.
When archetypes become
>conscious, they become abilities and cease to exist as archetypes.
well that makes way more sense, when it is being expresses as a
philosophical conundrum, that one must be 'mindful of invoking
something that is but beyond mind' as a predicate to the use and
understanding of the term "archetype"
But philosophically speaking, one could argue that, on both accounts
of its use just now through example, you haven't here transcended the
word "archetype", you have only projected onto it other strange terms
that make the meaning of the word much more obscure to minds, which
only says it doesn't hold any sense as a real word.
You should expect a whole rambly output of banter like this when you
are attempting to using words like so to describe a particular
condition of mindfulness that must transcend words but are not even
using the proper ones to command that someone look beyond them to
apprehend that inferred meaning.
>"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
>out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
Have you actually read Nietzsche's work?
If you haven't, you should.
You clearly need to do more work.
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, thee...@azrmci.net (The_Sage) laughed madly, then
wrote:
>>Reply to article by: Joe Cosby <joec...@mindspring.com>
>>Date written: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 11:55:32 -0700
>>MsgID:<mboaluofrvvmf5q22...@4ax.com>
>
>>We can also prove logically, fairly simply, that anything you can
>>comment on exists first in your mind.
>
>We were not discussing what we could *comment* on, but what actually
>exists or not.
>
Oh? Could you explain to me what "exists but cannot be commented on?"
>>Oh dear, this logical rigor thing is more difficult than it seemed,
>>isn't it?
>
>Oh no, it is really rather easy. Just have to watch your pees and
>ques.
>
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
the AMAZING thing is that every hour you spend drinking coffee
you make back in the hours that you do not need to sleep.
For coffee is truely the beverage of time control.
The Stinking Bishop Prostata Cantata MP
The_Sage
>MsgID:<Twh59.6393$Ik.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>
>>That is the old illogical fallacy of "if you can't disprove it,
>>it must be true". Can you disprove the existence of Smurfs?
>disproving the existence of something is by grammar different
>than proving their non-existence, but I'll take your statement
>the way you've laid it out. I can point to no credible evidence to
>their existence outside the minds and products of minds associated
>with these fictions.
Okay, but how does one "point" to "no evidence"? Grammer problems?
>their limited existence is external, they have no 'selfhood'.
How does something that doesn't have a credible existence, have a
limited existence? Another grammer problem?
>>According to your "logic" they must exist because no one can
>>disprove they exist.
>false.
So you say, but don't just sit there and assert it is so, provide a
reasonable logical reason how the existence of Smurfs is a
possibility, since by definition they are imaginary cartoon
characters.
>you haven't understood the logic.
What makes you think there was any "logic" to understand to begin
with?
>we have no ability to prove that something doesn't exist.
>if you think you have one, please demonstrate it, bring
>it out for us to examine.
That's easy:
If my wife comes running into my bedroom and screams, "There is a 50
foot flying saucer in the garage and hundreds of 3 foot tall ETs are
pouring out of it into the garage at this very moment!". Immediately
upon entering the garage, there are no ETs or UFOs to observe, that
would be absolute proof that neither the UFO nor the ETs existed
anywhere except in my wife's imagination.
I can say the same thing about any God, psychic powers, visiting ETs,
your belief in magic, etc.
>>Not only that,the Smurfs have been made into a movie and
>>according to the "logic" you gave to us from one of your
>>other posts, if you can make it into a movie, it must be real.
>it is the product of imagination
How does something that doesn't actually physically exist, produce
something that does? You, like Tom and Seyfert, confuse a human
physically *reacting* to the imaginary, with the imaginary thing
itself. Imagination is not an entity with a mind or physical body of
it's own. Neither the mind nor a concept that the mind imagines, can
exist or do anything outside of the mind. Nothing whatsoever.
>and as such constitutes an
>example implying the existence of the imagination. you cannot
>twist Tom's excellent analogy, refuting your claims that the
>the Collective Unconscious and its products are somehow of the
>same substance (you spoke strangely of 'some imaginary place')
>and therefore even the products can't be observed, into some-
>thing it is not. perhaps you merely misunderstood Tom, but he
>seemed very clear as you quoted him.
It is very plainly obvious to anyone who knows the difference between
the imaginary and reality, that Star Wars is a make believe or
imaginary story. Just because it was published in a movie does not
suddenly make it a non-imaginary story.
>>>on the other hand, with scientists and other rational
>>>folks, we can agree on 'reasonable suppositions which it
>>>would be insulting or ridiculous to oppose for long'.
>>That is a really smurfy agrument you've got going here...
>thanks! where I come from there was much joking about Smurfs
>and Purple Dinosaurs as objects of torment and violence.
>I think we got too much sugar while growing up or something. :>
>you really need the pablum, huh? ok....
No thanks, you can keep it to yourself.
>proving that something doesn't exist involves a
>level of certitude which cannot obtain outside
>mystical subjective states and other axiomatic
>or confined knowledge systems.
Completely wrong, as I have already proved.
>it is of a fundamentally different character than
>proving that something does in fact exist (by
>bringing it forth or pointing to it directly).
>this is it in a nutshell and is covered by reliable
>philosophers of science, such as Popper and others,
>if memory serves. the objection by Alex and my attempt
>to get this out of the way was merely something basic
>which most philosophers of science already admit (on
>account of its logical persuasiveness -- it seems to
>be true on its face), though I'm happy to hear how
>you think this perspective and argument is flawed. thanks!
You're welcome! Let this be a lesson to you to stop parroting what
others who have gone on before you told you to think and say, because
not everything that you have heard is an absolute fact.
>if you think you have a means of proving that something
>doesn't exist, anything, please bring it out for us to
>examine and apply. you may convert us to your cult! ;>
If you are seeking yet another cult to join other than the one you are
currently in now, then I haven't done my job yet.
>Stephen J. Gould (peace be upon him) resolved this in
>an eloquent way, confirming that the extremity of the
>claim ought be the standard by which proof need appear,
Then let's see your extraordinary proof that Smurfs could possibly
exist outside of your imagination.
>and that general agreements about what is rational to
>maintain can be arranged aforehand and left behind as a
>precursor to true scientific and empirical examinations.
No agreement is necessary, only facts will do.
The_Sage
>Date written: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 23:54:24 GMT
>MsgID:<QIh59.6401$Ik.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>
>>...what we are knowing in this case is always the unconscious
>>of the *past* and not the present. Our present unconscious
>>is unknown.
>this is a very valuable distinction, Sage. by definitions of
>the terms "unconscious" and "conscious" we are discussing
>only material in the past (because the present experience
>only includes conscious, rather than unconscious material).
The only time the unconscious becomes a component of the past only, is
when it is a part of the collective unconscious. If something is only
personally unconscious for you, that won't stop others from being
conscious of it.
>inference and implication may thereafter be abstracted so
>as to get a fix on what unconscious structures may exist.
>you seem to agree about this, and that direct apprehension
>of these structures is by definition subject to a different
>category of experience than is covered by your language.
>as you present it this is doctrine,
You are very mistaken, since I have not presented it at all yet. I
discussed tidbits of it, but by no means have I presented it. I was
leaving that up to you since you made the bold claim that Jung's
methods were flawed, and I wanted you to elaborate on which particular
method of Jung's that you logically and factually found flawed. I
believe that you were just stating a blind faith belief as though it
were based on honest research. But it isn't, is it? And I think, as a
result of this revealation, you have been inadvertently negatively
judged yourself all along by negatively judging others for doing what
you mistakenly thought they were doing, when in reality you were the
only one doing it.
>though we have no real
>convincing argument from you that we should adopt your
>language.
And you never will since my argument isn't with anyone on language,
just facts. You do know what a fact is, don't you?
>it is possible, for example, that one may make
>varying levels of successful *approaches to the experience
>of these underlying structures*,
Underlying? Underlying *what* exactly?
>very much like looking
>with a flashlight where typically darkness lies. what we
>may see when looking will not be that darkness without
>our light, agreed. what will it be? will it show us some
>reflection of what is there when there is no flashlight?
>I'm unsure that you are addressing such questions.
You are doing it for us by making negative judgements and revealing
language (like your use of "underlying" for example).
Seyfert-1
thee...@azrmci.net (The_Sage):
>...how does one "point" to "no evidence"? Grammer problems?
absolutely.
>How does something that doesn't have a credible existence,
>have a limited existence? Another grammer problem?
absolutely.
>How does something that doesn't actually physically exist,
>produce something that does?
the biology of imagination exists, just as does the biology
of unconsciousness. biological beings experience concepts,
with exposure to sufficient symbolism. this experience can
be reflected upon and this reflection expressed about via
symbols. often those symbols as a set are associated with
the conceptual experience (fiction, fantasy). the process
is pretty simple. its experience is merely a different
perspective on it as compared to its biology.
>Then let's see your extraordinary proof that Smurfs could
>possibly exist outside of your imagination.
proving that something COULD exist? LOL! see ya!
Seyfert-1
naga...@luckymojo.com
The_Sage
>MsgID:<3D555FAF...@Gate.Of.Forever>
>I find it very naive of people to think there is only instinctive
>physical action and no such thing as instinctive thought.
Is it naive? Or is it that people are offended?
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, thee...@azrmci.net (The_Sage) laughed madly, then
wrote:
>>Reply to article by: *Philip* <Ph...@Gate.Of.Forever>
>>Date written: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 14:47:11 -0400
>>MsgID:<3D555FAF...@Gate.Of.Forever>
>
>>I find it very naive of people to think there is only instinctive
>>physical action and no such thing as instinctive thought.
>
>Is it naive? Or is it that people are offended?
>
Have you ever been face to face with an angel? Or a devil?
>The Sage
>
>=============================================================
>My Home Page : http://home.rmci.net/thesage
>
>"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
>out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
>=============================================================
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"The Shrink asks me what the American flag means to me.
I tell him, "soak it in heroin Doc, and I'll suck it."
The shrink tells me I have a bad attitude. Tells
me to get right with Jesus.
Then with tears running down their fink faces, the Do-rights
as one man bellow out the Star Spangled banner."
- William S. Burroughs
Alex Sumner
"The_Sage" <thee...@azrmci.net> wrote in message
news:3d555cda...@news.rmci.net...
> >Reply to article by: "Alex Sumner" <alex_...@yahoo.co.uk>
> >Date written: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 10:52:47 +0100
> >MsgID:<3d54e615$0$5106$afc3...@news.ukonline.co.uk>
>
> >>There is no other viable explanation at this time -- which means if
> >>you know anything at all about those phenomena, you wouldn't be able
> >>to logically or factually conclude it most certainly doesn't exist.
>
> >As a matter of logic itself, one cannot logically or factually conclude
the
> >Collective Unconscious most certainly doesn't exist.
>
> it isn't a matter of logic itself, it is corroborated by the history
> of myths.
>
You seem to link that Logic and the history of myths are unrelated?
AS
http://www.geocities.com/alex_sumner/
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.377 / Virus Database: 211 - Release Date: 15/07/2002
SynchroniCity
frank green <fran...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3D559515...@attbi.com...
This is right. Jung did state that the term is not 'original'. He does
credit forerunners. There are differences between the
'generic philosophy' (classic philosophy), literature, and Jungs take.
For example, archetypes ALSO do have a physical
counterpart which are seated in the brain itself. The relationship
between the macrocosm and microcosm is brought into perspective here because
the "tug of war" or 'fate vs. free will' are more like 'complexes having
people' rather than the other way around: 'people having complexes' (as
though they were pets:).
Though Jung never really "proved" to the "scientific community" that the
collective unconcious exists, in my opinion "proof" is not as significant
as "grasping" and "dealing" with the implications when they present
themselves in both blatant and stealth operations. Even that term has
traces back to "generic philosophy" in various terminologies. Jung
complimented Progoff for his understanding of the Collective Unconscious,
and in "Jung, Synchronicity and Human Destiny", the bridge between de
Chardin's "noosphere" and Jung's CU are akin.
God is beyond the CU and good and evil. More like a "Nous." The CU is
closer to the Noosphere, with some very minor differences. Of course most
people have a difficult time grasping let alone proving the existence of
such an "invisible" hand, but such is life, not everyone, I feel needs to
know. It is probably more important for many people just to go about their
daily lives raising their pets, kids, buying material objects, and worrying
about wars, etc. For Jung, did hold that without the human psyche, it
would be meaningless if we thought about it.
Futility of life, nihilism would set in if the CU "wrote off" the human
plight. There is a term "survol", (Ruyer), which is also discussed by Von
Franz. It is a sort of "birds eye view of the universe as a whole".
The en masse' view incorporates a "supraconscience" (akin to Jung's CU, or
actually "absolute knowledge", according to Von Franz.).
There we find the numinous "foreshadowing" we fall into prior to
"equivalences of meanings" in our tertium comparationis (comparison between
the internal and external). When they are in "gleichartigeit" (used by
Jung and Progoff) the "physical and internal processes are equivalent).
The "absolute knowledge" has a "foreknowledge" that pops into a dream, or
waking state through various tricks, though we might not be able to
comprehend what is in store till afterward, in many cases.
CU later, or shall I say UC?
RE
> > -
>
frank green
frank green
"PSYCHE" IS NOT AN ARCHAIC TERM FOR "MIND." THAT IS THE CONTEMPORARY
MEANING. THE ORIGINAL MEANING WAS "SOUL." THE BEHAVIORISTS, OF COURSE,
COULDN'T PARADIGM THAT, SO TO THEM IT DID NOT EXIST.
frank green
The_Sage wrote:
> >Reply to article by: nagasiva <naga...@yronwode.SPAMcom>
> >Date written: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 23:41:39 GMT
> >MsgID:<Twh59.6393$Ik.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>
>
> >>That is the old illogical fallacy of "if you can't disprove it,
> >>it must be true". Can you disprove the existence of Smurfs?
>
> >disproving the existence of something is by grammar different
> >than proving their non-existence, but I'll take your statement
> >the way you've laid it out. I can point to no credible evidence to
> >their existence outside the minds and products of minds associated
> >with these fictions.
>
> Okay, but how does one "point" to "no evidence"? Grammer problems?
NO, JUST SPELLING PROBLEM.
>
>
> >their limited existence is external, they have no 'selfhood'.
>
> How does something that doesn't have a credible existence, have a
> limited existence? Another grammer problem?
JUST ANOTHER SPELLING PROBLEM, PROVING THE FIRST WASN'T A TYPO BUT A SIGN
OF ILLITERACY.
AND ANOTHER! THIS IS THE WORST. POOR ILLITERATE.
> own.Neither the mind nor a concept that the mind imagines, can
AND NOW VERBS DON'T AGREE WITH SUBJECTS. MAKES ONE WONDER.
frank green
The_Sage wrote:
JUST SO YOU GUYS KNOW, A FACT IS AN ACT.
z.z.
Very interesting thread, and informative post, RE.
Would you happen to know of any "mainstream" Jungians' opinions on the
similarities of Near Death experiences, across cultures and age
groups, and how these may relate to the theory of the CU?
thnx.
z.z.
--
Joseph Count de Money
ICU would probly be more appropriate except for it's rather archytypal
overtones in the medical community.,
>
>
> RE
>
> > > -
> >
--
Joseph ( The probability for an event which can happen in two
indistinguishable ways is the sum of the probability for each way
considered separately) Count de Money.
SynchroniCity
z.z. <zzd...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:3d57986f...@cnews.newsguy.com...
Fromm Rey of SynchroniCity:
"Mainstream", hmmmm, well, as you probably already know many have taken
Jung's concepts to support their own particular slants. In some cases it
gets to the point of a "cultish" following. In other cases, the serious
nature gets into the "right hands."
If you check out the Art Bell guest archives you might have some luck.
Some of those guests, and it seems to be growing mention Jung in
relationship with their own efforts.
I know Jung used a few examples, one about a soldier, another about "eyes
in the ceiling" typology, but I can't offer anything other than these.
Although I believe in "eternal life", I am sometimes sceptical about <some>
reports, in that they might, in my opinion are "seeing" processes of their
own neurological cell firings and memory outbursts and projections. But
that does not mean that I am making an overgeneralized nor hasty conclusion
and ruling out observerd continuums between life and death. I just don't
know which ones are actual.
RE
>
> --
>
SynchroniCity
Joseph Count de Money <jos...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3D55F7C4...@pacbell.net...
Frommm Rey of SynchroniCity:
EYE C U? Anyhow, for a bridge between "medical community" and the "CU"
how about the way the CU
inocculates some CC's (Collective Consciousnesses)?
C U Later/al T(r)aces ( Jung - Schopenhaurer 'inside joke')
SynchroniCity
> HEY REY. RIGHT ON.
Fromm Rey of SynchroniCity:
Thanks for a refreshing pat on the back. Apart from one disruptive
character that delights in giving the finger your contributions along with
others in this thread have proved to be a positive contribution and
educational. They fill in the gaps by providing insights.
RE
z.z.
Ok, thanks.
Perhaps someone else out there has some ideas about the prevalence of
the "tunnel/bright light/dead relatives" reports as it pertains to a
possible parallel to the Collective Unconscious?
Geez, does this mean I have to un-killfile The Sage???? :)
z.z.
--
SynchroniCity
>
>
> catherine yronwode wrote:
>
> > *Philip* wrote:
> > >
> > > catherine yronwode wrote:
> > > > As far as i know, the existence of the collective unconsious is an
> > > > unproven paranormal theory developed by Carl G. Jung.
> > >
> > > That is really wrong!
> > >
> > > The Collective Unconscious is that part of our individual psyche
> >
> > The psyche is an unproven paranormal structure that is linked to the
> > mind or body. It is not congruent with "mind" or "mentality" but the wod
> > "spirit" is sometimes used interchangeably with it.
> >
Fromm Rey of SynchroniCity:
Don't know if this could do anything here, it's a quote from Modern Man in
Search of a Soul (paragraphs 328-329):
"The names people give to their experiences are often quite enlightening.
What is the origin of the word SEELE (italicized)? Like the English word
soul, it comes from the Gothic SAIWALA (italicized) and the Old German
SAIWALO (italicized), and these can be connected with the Greek AIOLOS
(italicized), mobile, coloured, iridescent. The Greek word PSYCHE
(italicized) also means butterfly. SAIWALO is related on the other side to
the old Slavonic word SILA (italicized), meaning strength. From these
connetions light is thrown on the original meaning of the word SEELE
(italicized): it is moving force, that is life -force.
"The Latin words ANIMUS (italicized), spirit, and ANIMA (italicized), soul,
are the same as the Greek ANEMOS (italicized), wind. The other Greek word
for wind, PNEUMA (italicized), means also spirit. In Gothic we find the
same word in US-ANAN (italicized), to breathe out, and in Latin AN-HELARE
(italicized) to pant. In Old High German, SPIRITUS SANCTUS (italicized) was
rendered by by ATUN (italicized), breath. In Arabic, wind is RIH
(italicized), and RUH (italicized) is soul, spirit. There is a quite
similar connection with the Greek PSYCHE (italicized), which is related to
PSYCHO (italicized), to breathe, PSYHCOS (italicized), cool, PSYHCROS
(italicized), cold, and PHUSA (italicized), bellows. These affinities show
clearly how in the Latin, Greek and Arabic the names given to the soul are
related to the notion of moving air, the 'cold breath of the spirit'. And
this also is why the primitive point of view endows the sould with an
invisible breath body."
RE
P.S If the "earth thinks" and it were running fast, it would shout
"ME?" iRAN! Sha KING FROM iRAN!
RUH.... Earth YELTsin! US? Noos is a thinKING PLANiT!
> > > which is the same for all people.
> >
> > A portion of an unseeable paranormal structure which is the same for all
> > people remains unprevable and unseeable.
> >
> > > Have you ever heard of, for example, "instincts"?
> >
> > Yes. Instincts are patterns *behaviours* that are heritable.
> >
> > The collective unconscious is not a *behaviour.*
> >
> > > Archetypes are defined by Jung as "patterns of instinctive behavior".
> >
> > Really? If he defined archetypes as "patterns of behaviour" then i
> > suspect he was mish-mashing thoughts and actions rather
> > indiscriminately.
Fromm Rey of SynchroniCity:
Actually its more like a Cambell Soup than distinct particles.
RE
> >
> > Please understand that i have nothing against a belief in or personal
> > application of the theory of the collective unconscious. I myself have
> > opted out of it.
> >
> > Being Jewish by birth, it was easy for me to forego the Jungian
> > belief-set, since Jung said in 1925 that Jews were not part of his
> > theoretcal construct anyway.
> >
> > But truth to tell, it was not Jung's racial exclusionism that drove me
> > from his school of theought -- it was my wide reading as a child. I kept
> > finding historical mythology that flatly contradicted his theory of
> > "universal" archetypes.
> >
> > For instance, Jung based the whole edicface of the "collective
> > unconscious" on the "Solar Man" data (which Noll has demonstrated was a
> > deliberate hoax on Jung's part, but, of course, i did not know that
> > then). Taking the Solar Man paradigm at face value, i was led by the
> > nose from one Solar-Male and Lunar-Female deity to another as Jungian
> > promoters like Erich Neumann and Joseph Campbell presented image after
> > image of Solar gods and Lunar goddesses to "prove" their "cvollective
> > unconscious: hypothesis.
> >
> > But the Jews see the Sun as a FEMALE and the moon as a MALE, and i KNEW
> > that.
> >
> > (That may explain why Jung felt that Jews were not part of the
> > "collective unconscious" when he lectured in 1925 that Jews did not
> > partake of "Aryan blood and soil." -- but sure, sure, we all know Jung
> > dropped this outright anti-Jewish angle after World War Two -- so let's
> > get back to the main point -- the Jews see the Sun as a FEMALE and the
> > moon as a MALE.)
> >
> > So, as a kid, here i was reading this Jung stuff and wondering what was
> > up with the Jews, how come they didn;t match the theory ... and then i
> > ran across a nice little book of Japanese mythology in my parents' book
> > store -- and i learned that the Japenese also see the Sun as a FEMALE
> > and the moon as a MALE. But they were on the same side of Warld War Two
> > as the "Aryan" (so-called) Germans, so that made no sense to me at all
> > -- because how could they be "Aryans" if they saw the Sun as FEMALE,
> > just like the Jews?????
> >
> > Well, a few years later i ran across the works of Samuel Noah Kramer,
> > who had embarked on a translation of every Sumerian text in the world --
> > and watcha know? The Sumerians saw the Sun as a FEMALE and the moon as a
> > MALE. In fact, in their mythology, the Moon was the father of both the
> > Sun and of Venus.
> >
> > So now i understood that the Jews were not merely rank outsiders to
> > "Aryan" and European mythology -- they were part of a long-standing
> > Middle Eastern tradition in which the Moon was the father and the Sun
> > was his son and his daughter Venus was The Queen of Heaven.
> >
> > I didn't have to hypothesize that the Japanese were part of some
> > bizarre Sumerian-Jewish lineage to explain their female Solar deity and
> > male lunar deity. I just had to apply Occam's Razor:
> >
> > There are two sexual genders and two major lights in the sky. In order
> > to create a mythology, emergent human cultures basically assigned a
> > gender to each of the major lights by a process almost as random as
> > flipping a coin. The only "universal" constant was that they assigned
> > one gender to the sun and the other gender to the moon.
Fromm Rey of SynchroniCity:
If I remember Jung correctly, he pointed out that "male" and "female" were
projections that were later given by various cultures. Wasn't it the
Chinese that at first had "opposites" before someone came in and started
using such things as passive and assertive till there was male and female
connotations?
RE
> >
> > In time, some of those cultures dominated others and some were dispersed
> > as minority populations. At any given point in time, one can draw a map
> > of areas where the sun is male and where the sun is female and that's
> > all one will have -- a MAP. It will not be a statement about the nature
> > of the "psyche" or the "collective unconsious" -- it will be a MAP of
> > cukltural movement. Period.
Fromm Rey of SynchroniCity:
How about a MAP like this: Mutually Assured Peace....
RE
> >
> > And where was Jung's archetypal Solar Man -- his proof of the "collecive
> > unconscious" -- in all of this? Well, as far as i was concerned, it
> > looked like map, too -- a map of the distribution of the Iranian (Aryan)
> > people, who long ago flipped their coin and came up worshipping a male
> > Sun ... and eventually dominated a rather large territory.
> >
> > Controlling a lot of squares on the game board does not mean your
> > mythology is "universal." And as long as the Japanese and Jews exist, no
> > one will be able to demonstrate the "universality" of "archetypes" that
> > "instinctively" spring from the "collective unconscious."
> >
> > cat yronwode
>
> Poor girl. You miss out on so much.
Fromm Rey of SynchroniCity:
If I remember my research correctly, the lexiconologists could trace the
term "archetype" through into its literary roots along with its
philosophical equivalences. One sense would be "to call" (the pattern as
an non force 'abverb'). The "first actor" would "answer the call" , the
term "hippocrates" stems from that "first" answer to a call.
And although this might not have anything to do with anything on this
thread, I remember researching this because I was also researching
"reshit" and "bereshit" for some speech I was invited to give both at some
university (for a pun group) and also at a private group, involving
synchronicity and language (punning mania). In any case, I was getting
close to a "maledicta" and I realized it when someone (like in a cloak and
dagger) had so elequently placed a book titled maledicta in my travels.
It was obviously left there. In any case, I was photocopying my research
on the lexicons of archetypes and "reshit" which made me think of "the
begining and the end" (possible recycling existence through this
continuity), BUT, as I walked out of the photocopy service (in those
days before KINKO) I noticed a Jewish book store on the same floor next to
the copy service.
I tried to open the door, but it was locked so I went on my way. Then a
voice came from the door and asked me if that was me trying to get in and I
said "yes" and that I only had been curious. He said "come in" and I
decided OK. There were a bunch of books, I think they were yellow covers
with the big bold letters "BERESHITH". It "got the point across to me"
and the spelling is probably a more preferable way to refer to the first
word of the Judaeic Scripture. (In the beginning).
RE
RE
>
SynchroniCity
> z.z.
Fromm Rey of SynchroniCity:
LOL. Well, so called "sage" might be somewhat convoluted in his postings,
but there are "glimmers" of half truths. I think of it more like a drunken
monkey that gloats and pounds his chest because he can point to where he
thinks the bathroom is even though in his mind the "bathroom" only exists in
our imagination.
I'm sorry I can't be of more assistance, my focus is on "synchronicity". My
bouts with the CU, as profound or trivial as they have been, only points to
the overwhelming realization that there are more dimensions than we can
comprehend from our perspective. For example, imagine looking at a tv
screen and a ball player hits a foul ball. For an instant it looks as
though it might be coming straight toward the camera, when in fact in goes
the exact other way. The "optical illusion" is because in our frame of
reference we are unable to determine the real dimensional qualities, UNLESS
we find ourselves in a fortunate position.
Also, the concept of the CU, also includes "everything" including material,
spirit and energy -eternally. This means also that "past", "present" and
"future" exist simultaneously in the "objective present". The "psyche"
from what I've gathered seems to be a sort of "bridge", and even has the
capability of "traveling" (for lack of better word) backwards or fowards in
time. Does that mean that we (or some people) can have the gift of being
connected to life after death in this world? I think so, but at the same
time, I think that the "good Lord" does not make it available to everyone
for the reason that it would be like making your sins observable to everyone
in your family, acquantances, friends, etc. There has to be some
"compromise" between the "light" and the "darkness", otherwise people would
gnash their teeth, pull their hair out, gouge their eyes and be in torment
and kill those that can see too much.
RE
RE
>
>
> --
>
Tom
> SAGE, OL' BUDDY,
>
> "PSYCHE" IS NOT AN ARCHAIC TERM FOR "MIND." THAT IS THE CONTEMPORARY
> MEANING. THE ORIGINAL MEANING WAS "SOUL." THE BEHAVIORISTS, OF COURSE,
> COULDN'T PARADIGM THAT, SO TO THEM IT DID NOT EXIST.
When did "paradigm" become a verb?
SynchroniCity
Joe Cosby <joec...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:g34clusta8rl44rpr...@4ax.com...
> thee...@azrmci.net (The_Sage) hunched over a computer, typing
> feverishly;
> thunder crashed, thee...@azrmci.net (The_Sage) laughed madly, then
> wrote:
>
> >>Reply to article by: *Philip* <Ph...@Gate.Of.Forever>
> >>Date written: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 14:47:11 -0400
> >>MsgID:<3D555FAF...@Gate.Of.Forever>
> >
> >>I find it very naive of people to think there is only instinctive
> >>physical action and no such thing as instinctive thought.
> >
> >Is it naive? Or is it that people are offended?
> >
>
> Have you ever been face to face with an angel? Or a devil?
>
> >The Sage
Fromm Rey of SynchroniCity:
Joe, you should probably be aware by now that the "predicable sage
response" would be "there are no angels or devils. They exist only in your
imagination." Thereby begging the question to look at his left hand and
evading the the right hand.
RE
z.z.
<sync...@yippiy.com> wrote:
> I think so, but at the same
>time, I think that the "good Lord" does not make it available to everyone
>for the reason that it would be like making your sins observable to everyone
>in your family, acquantances, friends, etc. There has to be some
>"compromise" between the "light" and the "darkness", otherwise people would
>gnash their teeth, pull their hair out, gouge their eyes and be in torment
>and kill those that can see too much.
>
Oh, I gotcha; you mean guys like Copernicus, Jung and The Sage :)
<just ask him! ;-p
Really, thanks for that...
z.z.
--
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, "SynchroniCity" <sync...@yippiy.com> laughed madly,
then wrote:
>
>Joe Cosby <joec...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:g34clusta8rl44rpr...@4ax.com...
>> thee...@azrmci.net (The_Sage) hunched over a computer, typing
>> feverishly;
>> thunder crashed, thee...@azrmci.net (The_Sage) laughed madly, then
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>Reply to article by: *Philip* <Ph...@Gate.Of.Forever>
>> >>Date written: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 14:47:11 -0400
>> >>MsgID:<3D555FAF...@Gate.Of.Forever>
>> >
>> >>I find it very naive of people to think there is only instinctive
>> >>physical action and no such thing as instinctive thought.
>> >
>> >Is it naive? Or is it that people are offended?
>> >
>>
>> Have you ever been face to face with an angel? Or a devil?
>>
>> >The Sage
>
>Fromm Rey of SynchroniCity:
>
>Joe, you should probably be aware by now that the "predicable sage
>response" would be "there are no angels or devils. They exist only in your
>imagination."
I don't know, I haven't really been following this all that closely.
I suppose they do "exist only in your imagination" in some
philosophical sense, that doesn't really preclude meeting them though.
>Thereby begging the question to look at his left hand and
>evading the the right hand.
>
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Did you bring enough nuclear weapons for THE WHOLE CLASS, Johnny?
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> laughed madly, then
wrote:
When did capslock become acceptable on usenet for that matter ...
SynchroniCity
Fromm Rey of SynchroniCity:
Well, I don't know about "sage" because his claims are in contrast to the
context of Jung in many cases. But yes, the other two are appropriate in
the sense of having brought up info "too soon" before "people can swallow
it."
But look at the "witch hunts." Or the story about Jesus Christ.
Now imagine how the political leadership would react nowadays when one the
one side of their mouth they demand "family values", yet because they are
made of flesh, many sin. Would they like their "sins" exposed? Imagine
if "telepathy" evolved sooner than we can control our lusts. People would
know if when we are "cheating" with their wives. How would you like to have
your mind read constantly? I think people are lucky in a sense because
the bombardment of mass media has drowned out most of the possibility of
evolving to a "telepathic society." I think that is a "gift" that
should be limited to a few that are beyond the power to abuse it.
Even worse, imagine if the purity of a psychoid's image reflected upon the
will of the world to the point where the world's light elevated beyond the
capability of human flesh to endure. Nope, I don't think people would
stand for it. They want to hide from that kind of light and would fight to
keep it that way. Even ridicule and kill if necessary to make sure. Some
skeptics even admit that is their motivation because they have that
"messiah" complex because they feel that people need to be saved from that
sort of B.S. So they live their lives poo pooing it in order to shift the
self fullfilling possibilities.
AND EVEN WORSE, imagine if the "dead" were to actually see all of our
lustful sins. I don't feel that it is a "gift" that everyone should have.
Any world should have "some" that have this gift, only if to protect the
inhabitants from themselves.
RE
>
> --
>
SynchroniCity
Correct. That is valid logic. But "attitude" sometimes rules mentalities.
RE
> >Thereby begging the question to look at his left hand and
> >evading the the right hand.
> >
>
> --
> Joe Cosby
> http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
>
> Did you bring enough nuclear weapons for THE WHOLE CLASS, Johnny?
Fromm Rey of SynchroniCity:
Time Bomb Medallion strapped around the neck
Ticking tick tick tick
Time Bomb Medallion gift to Johnny strapped round his neck
Johnny is marching like AdamHA, mumbling and crying tick tick
tick tick
Johnny looks up and cries RAIN!
tick tick tick
RAIN! REIGN OH tick tick CLEAR PURE tick RAIN- BOW
tick tick tick
Johnny trying to act "as if time" tick tick tick "to diffuse time bomb
medallion" tick tick
REIGN cries Johnny, (K)New Clear Future, NOT NUCLEAR BOMB, ....
(K)New Clear Future,
tick tick tick
RE
The_Sage
>Date written: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 00:21:40 -0700
>MsgID:<g34clusta8rl44rpr...@4ax.com>
>>>I find it very naive of people to think there is only instinctive
>>>physical action and no such thing as instinctive thought.
>>Is it naive? Or is it that people are offended?
>Have you ever been face to face with an angel? Or a devil?
No, and neither have you.
The_Sage
>Date written: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 17:01:45 GMT
>MsgID:<3D56949B...@attbi.com>
>SAGE, OL' BUDDY,
>"PSYCHE" IS NOT AN ARCHAIC TERM FOR "MIND." THAT IS THE CONTEMPORARY
>MEANING. THE ORIGINAL MEANING WAS "SOUL." THE BEHAVIORISTS, OF COURSE,
>COULDN'T PARADIGM THAT, SO TO THEM IT DID NOT EXIST.
Close but no cigar. It is a Greek suffix that means soul, self, or
mind. In Jung's case, he always used it as a substitute for "mind":
"Psyche. Used by Jung interchangably with the German word Seele,
which has no english equivalent, as the translator of the
COLLECTED WORKS noted (CW 12, para 9n).
By his basic definition of psyche at the 'totality of all
psychic processes, conscious as well as unconscious' (CW 6, para
797), Jung intended to delineat the area of interest for
analytical psychology" (A CRITICAL DICTIONARY OF JUNGIAN ANALYSIS,
by Andrew Samuels, pg 115)
And in case you get any funny ideas, Jung also used the term "psychic"
(as in "psychic processes") to mean "mental" and not "paranormal", as
anyone can plainly see by the quotes above.
The_Sage
>MsgID:<v4qblu01p22qbv6s8...@4ax.com>
>>>We can also prove logically, fairly simply, that anything you can
>>>comment on exists first in your mind.
>>We were not discussing what we could *comment* on, but what actually
>>exists or not.
>Oh? Could you explain to me what "exists but cannot be commented on?"
I'm not going to comment on something I didn't imply. You said that
anything we can comment has to exist first in our minds. The universe
existed before our minds ever did, and being able to comment on
anything does not prove or disprove its existence -- that is an
illogical statement.
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, thee...@azrmci.net (The_Sage) laughed madly, then
wrote:
>>Reply to article by: Joe Cosby <joec...@mindspring.com>
>>Date written: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 00:21:40 -0700
>>MsgID:<g34clusta8rl44rpr...@4ax.com>
>
>>>>I find it very naive of people to think there is only instinctive
>>>>physical action and no such thing as instinctive thought.
>
>>>Is it naive? Or is it that people are offended?
>
>>Have you ever been face to face with an angel? Or a devil?
>
>No, and neither have you.
You've never had sex with a conscious woman.
Ooh, this is fun, when we can just make up whatever we want!
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"A free society trusts its citizens."
-- George W. Bush in China
The_Sage
>MsgID:<3d5681dc$0$12843$afc3...@news.ukonline.co.uk>
>>>As a matter of logic itself, one cannot logically or factually conclude
>>>the Collective Unconscious most certainly doesn't exist.
>>Well if that were true, I wouldn't even give it a second thought. But
>>it isn't a matter of logic itself, it is corroborated by the history
>>of myths.
>You seem to link that Logic and the history of myths are unrelated?
I definitely know that the history of myths and the collective
unconscious are related.
By the way, logic has to do with the resolution of the truthfulness
and/or ambiguity of statements and is therefore unrelated to history
since history is not a statement.
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, thee...@azrmci.net (The_Sage) laughed madly, then
wrote:
>>Reply to article by: Joe Cosby <joec...@mindspring.com>
>>Date written: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:32:05 -0700
>>MsgID:<v4qblu01p22qbv6s8...@4ax.com>
>
>>>>We can also prove logically, fairly simply, that anything you can
>>>>comment on exists first in your mind.
>
>>>We were not discussing what we could *comment* on, but what actually
>>>exists or not.
>
>>Oh? Could you explain to me what "exists but cannot be commented on?"
>
>I'm not going to comment on something I didn't imply. You said that
>anything we can comment has to exist first in our minds. The universe
>existed before our minds ever did, and being able to comment on
>anything does not prove or disprove its existence -- that is an
>illogical statement.
So you are saying that being able to comment on something doesn't
prove or disprove it's existence, but you are not implying that there
are things which exist but cannot be commented on?
And then you are claiming that -I- am being illogical?
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"Nothing good shall come of what we have done here
today. Fortunately, no good was intended to come
from it in the first place. So let's just hope
we don't get caught."
The_Sage
>Date written: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 03:57:10 GMT
>MsgID:<jujblukcbhtj09mig...@4ax.com>
>>>>Since archetypes are by definition, beyond consciousness,
>>>perhaps you mean "they, by definition, mean (to invoke) more than
>>>human reasoning per se" which would make much more sense than the idea
>>>that somebody once looked up at the heavens and simply declared
>>>"archetype", and when anybody questioned what he meant by this, he
>>>answered "it is beyond us all", and so the word archetype came into
>>>being.
>>Nobody has been giving out any ideas like that, this idea only exists
>>in your mind.
>but it gives you an idea of how reasonable or not my ideas are when my
>mind is trying to make sense of what you are saying.
Since you don't know if your ideas are reasonable or not, why not ask
for facts instead of making blind faith assertions? And your ideas are
not reasonable since they aren't based on facts, as you clearly go on
to prove...
>>>Since all meaningful words must act as a symbolic anchor for some
>>>defining aspect of consciousness
>>>>you won't be able to see them in your dreams either.
>>>now you make it sound like "the force" (a'la star wars)
>>Not being able to see them in your dreams is like the "force a'la Star
>>Wars? That isn't even a remotely logical derivation of anything anyone
>>has ever said in this thread.
>I haven't read most of the messages in this thread. I merely draw from
>my own understand of me here now.
Explain how you logically went from "you won't be able to see
archetypes in your dreams" to "that is like the force in Star Wars"?
>>>it sounds like you're asking people to consider a definition that is
>>>way beyond the apprehension of any stable human mind, when I though
>>>the purpose of an archetypal theme or image was to help invoke the
>>>opposite response. and to help us better assimilate the heavens.
>>If you don't understand something, feel free to ask instead of blaming
>>everybody else for your ignorance. All you've done is jump to
>>conclusions before you have all the facts.
>You say that like you're knowledge is boundless
That is your (mis)interpretation and not a fact, therefore...
>and so the process by
>which you derive your answers is clearly and obviously fault free,
>when the most obvious thing to me, is that your replies are full of a
>type of reasoning that is unreconcilable to my mind.
...your conclusion is logically unreasonable since it is based on your
mental projections of how you imagine the world to be instead of what
it actually is like. Next time, try a more intelligent response
instead of the logical fallacy of attacking the messenger instead of
attacking the message.
>basically, you seem to be tripping over the use of a few very
>rudimentary words and perhaps a few logical terms, and don't seem to
>want to rectify those errors.
Why haven't you listed any "errors" then?
>and my asking about how you mentally reconcile your replies, is based
>on that error.
>it's not my lot to push you out of the rut you're in.
>If having all this in the form of questions is all you want, i can
>happily oblige and humor myself from here on by throwing rhetoric at
>you. If that's how you want things.
>But that's not what i'm about.
Yeah, I can see what you are about...and it certainly isn't about
reason or facts.
>>>are they beyond words and symbols?
>>Actually, they are beyond words and images. Words and images are
>>products of consciousness, therefore if it is unconscious, it *must*
>>be beyond words and images.
>then how do you justify the use of the word "archetype" if there are
>no words or images (let alone any consciousness) to delineate it in
>human terms for the human mind to comprehend?
As was mentioned before you butted into the middle of this
conversation, the archetypes we have right *now* at this very moment
are beyond words and images, but what archetypes we *used* to have are
well known and documented because ex-archetypes are *not* beyond words
and images.
Your mistake.
>Doesn't that kinda contradict the very application of and reason for
>having words?
Not if you understand the meaning of the words you are using, and the
context they are given in, as indicated by your major blunder above.
Since the rest of this post was based on that irrational, premature,
and unfactual conclusion of yours, I'm not going to bother replying to
it since it will just be a repeat of the above.
You jump into the middle of a conversation where you have no idea what
transpired beforehand, about a subject you don't understand. But yet
you are going to deny and criticize other people for *your* ignorance?
Bzzzt! Wrong!
Obviosly, it is really you who clearly needs to do more work, so start
working.
The_Sage
>MsgID:<3D5697A1...@attbi.com>
>>And you never will since my argument isn't with anyone on language,
>>just facts. You do know what a fact is, don't you?
>JUST SO YOU GUYS KNOW, A FACT IS AN ACT.
Is what you dreamed last night a fact?
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, thee...@azrmci.net (The_Sage) laughed madly, then
wrote:
>>Reply to article by: Joe Cosby <joec...@mindspring.com>
>>Date written: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:32:05 -0700
>>MsgID:<v4qblu01p22qbv6s8...@4ax.com>
>
>>>>We can also prove logically, fairly simply, that anything you can
>>>>comment on exists first in your mind.
>
>>>We were not discussing what we could *comment* on, but what actually
>>>exists or not.
>
>>Oh? Could you explain to me what "exists but cannot be commented on?"
>
>I'm not going to comment on something I didn't imply. You said that
>anything we can comment has to exist first in our minds. The universe
>existed before our minds ever did, and being able to comment on
>anything does not prove or disprove its existence -- that is an
>illogical statement.
Hmm look at this intriguing definition I found floating around on the
newsgroup:
>By the way, logic has to do with the resolution of the truthfulness
>and/or ambiguity of statements and is therefore unrelated to history
>since history is not a statement.
So if being able or not able to comment on something has nothing to do
with it's reality, and logic is inherently a means of evaluating the
truth and/or ambiguity of comments, then logic has nothing to do with
determining reality?
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Hurricanes to be considered terrorist acts. God said to be worried
The_Sage
>MsgID:<Blm59.6439$Ik.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>
>absolutely.
>absolutely.
Proof by assertion again? You have no clue how to have an intelligent
debate.
>>How does something that doesn't actually physically exist,
>>produce something that does?
>the biology of imagination exists,
Why do you use make believe terms to support your "argument" then? The
"biology of imagination"? What a bunch of BS!
>just as does the biology of unconsciousness.
In case you didn't notice, in fact I know you didn't notice, the mind
is not a physical thing. The brain has a biology but the mind does
not. Get a clue.
>biological beings experience concepts,
>with exposure to sufficient symbolism. this experience can
>be reflected upon and this reflection expressed about via
>symbols. often those symbols as a set are associated with
>the conceptual experience (fiction, fantasy). the process
>is pretty simple. its experience is merely a different
>perspective on it as compared to its biology.
You are quite the con man. But your little con job isn't going to work
in a psychology newsgroup.
>>Then let's see your extraordinary proof that Smurfs could
>>possibly exist outside of your imagination.
>proving that something COULD exist? LOL! see ya!
My point exactly. Please give us an example of how the Smurfs could
possibly exist outside of your imagination, as you implied you could.
I could use the laugh too.
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, Joe Cosby <joec...@mindspring.com> laughed madly,
then wrote:
"What we see is not nature, but nature exposed to our method of
questioning" - Heisenberg
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"Why isn't there any organization that supports heterosexual,
middle-class white men? Oh wait, that's congress."
-Spin City
Alex Sumner
"The_Sage" <thee...@azrmci.net> wrote in message
news:3d572be0...@news.rmci.net...
> >Reply to article by: "Alex Sumner" <alex_...@yahoo.co.uk>
> >Date written: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:17:34 +0100
> >MsgID:<3d5681dc$0$12843$afc3...@news.ukonline.co.uk>
>
> >>>As a matter of logic itself, one cannot logically or factually conclude
> >>>the Collective Unconscious most certainly doesn't exist.
>
> >>Well if that were true, I wouldn't even give it a second thought. But
> >>it isn't a matter of logic itself, it is corroborated by the history
> >>of myths.
>
> >You seem to link that Logic and the history of myths are unrelated?
>
> I definitely know that the history of myths and the collective
> unconscious are related.
>
> By the way, logic has to do with the resolution of the truthfulness
> and/or ambiguity of statements and is therefore unrelated to history
> since history is not a statement.
>
principles of Logic, or it defeats its own objectives.
AS
http://www.geocities.com/alex_sumner/
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.377 / Virus Database: 211 - Release Date: 15/07/2002
Tom
> >Reply to article by: Joe Cosby <joec...@mindspring.com>
> >Date written: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 00:21:40 -0700
> >MsgID:<g34clusta8rl44rpr...@4ax.com>
>
> >>>I find it very naive of people to think there is only instinctive
> >>>physical action and no such thing as instinctive thought.
>
> >>Is it naive? Or is it that people are offended?
>
> >Have you ever been face to face with an angel? Or a devil?
>
> No, and neither have you.
"He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows if you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake"
*Philip*
>
> >Reply to article by: *Philip* <Ph...@Gate.Of.Forever>
> >Date written: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 17:47:36 -0400
> >MsgID:<3D5589F8...@Gate.Of.Forever>
>
> >You are putting the cart before the horse. Jung started with instincts
> >and libido theory then moved to archetype theory to describe the
> >structure of the psyche. As everyone knows he said the psyche is
> >composed of conscious, ego, unconscious, shadow and archetypes as the
> >structural elements of the psyche. The fact that his theory can provide
> >a framework to attempt understanding of the paranormal only shows a
> >curious strength of his theory.
>
> Yes, it was. You have to admire someone who didn't ignore data like
> most scientists still do today in regards to people's interest in
> religion and the paranormal, since, as Jung pointed out, anything that
> people are interested in teaches us something about their psychology.
>
> >You are also confusing the archetype (instinctive template) with the
> >personal things that the archetype attaches (constellates, organizes) to
> >itself (such as the moon and sun). It is, I agree, very hard if not
> >*impossible*, to separate the personal societal from the generally
> >human.
>
> That is very easy: If it isn't impersonal, then it isn't collective.
>
> >For example what precisely is the patriarchal contamination of
> >various theories of society and psychology?
>
> What makes you think that partiarchal contents are collective anymore?
What I meant is that, according to feminists who study such things,
discerning exactly what are the patriarchal contaminants is difficult
because there are few matriarchal (only one I know of, in China) or
perfectly neutral cultures to compare/contrast ours with. Apparently
therefore some patriarchal contents are still unconscious.
>
> >I am interested in this "Solar Man" hoax! Where exactly in his
> >writings, which book, is this "Solar Man" put forward?
>
> Solar Man hoax? Haha!
Catherine is very quiet. I want to read Jung's writings about "Solar
Man". I guess she has not actually seen what Jung wrote on the subject.
--
齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged
to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't.
-Samuel Clemens
__________________________
_ __
_| |_ \ \
/ \ _ \ \ _ ______
( (| |) ) | > \| ( __ )
\_ _/| | / ^ \ || || |
|_| \_)_/ \_\_)_||_|
__________________________
P H I L I P
frank green
INNOCENCE IS CHARMING; IT'S HELL TO LOSE; AND HOPE YOU NEVER DO COME
FACE TO FACE WITH EVIL, BLESS YOU.
frank green
Tom wrote:
IN THE EARLY SIXTIES OR BEFORE.
frank green
Joe Cosby wrote:
> "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> hunched over a computer, typing
> feverishly;
> thunder crashed, "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> laughed madly, then
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"frank green" <fran...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> >news:3D56949B...@attbi.com...
> >> SAGE, OL' BUDDY,
> >>
> >> "PSYCHE" IS NOT AN ARCHAIC TERM FOR "MIND." THAT IS THE CONTEMPORARY
> >> MEANING. THE ORIGINAL MEANING WAS "SOUL." THE BEHAVIORISTS, OF COURSE,
> >> COULDN'T PARADIGM THAT, SO TO THEM IT DID NOT EXIST.
> >
> >When did "paradigm" become a verb?
> >
> >
>
> When did capslock become acceptable on usenet for that matter ...
>
WHENEVER I WANT.
frank green
The_Sage wrote:
> >Reply to article by: frank green <fran...@attbi.com>
> >Date written: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 17:01:45 GMT
> >MsgID:<3D56949B...@attbi.com>
>
> >SAGE, OL' BUDDY,
>
> >"PSYCHE" IS NOT AN ARCHAIC TERM FOR "MIND." THAT IS THE CONTEMPORARY
> >MEANING. THE ORIGINAL MEANING WAS "SOUL." THE BEHAVIORISTS, OF COURSE,
> >COULDN'T PARADIGM THAT, SO TO THEM IT DID NOT EXIST.
>
> Close but no cigar. It is a Greek suffix that means soul, self, or
> mind. In Jung's case, he always used it as a substitute for "mind":
>
> "Psyche. Used by Jung interchangably with the German word Seele,
> which has no english equivalent, as the translator of the
> COLLECTED WORKS noted (CW 12, para 9n).
> By his basic definition of psyche at the 'totality of all
> psychic processes, conscious as well as unconscious' (CW 6, para
> 797), Jung intended to delineat the area of interest for
> analytical psychology" (A CRITICAL DICTIONARY OF JUNGIAN ANALYSIS,
> by Andrew Samuels, pg 115)
>
> And in case you get any funny ideas, Jung also used the term "psychic"
> (as in "psychic processes") to mean "mental" and not "paranormal", as
> anyone can plainly see by the quotes above.
>
> The Sage
>
INTERESTING THAT JUNG USED THE WORD IN THIS WAY. PERHAPS IT WAS THE
BEGINNING OF THE CORRUPTION OF THE GREEK USE. REY SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND ALL
THE USES AND NUANCES. THE IMPORTANT THING TO REALIZE, I THINK, IS THAT THE
WORD HAS BECOME SECULARIZED.
frank green
Joe Cosby wrote:
> thee...@azrmci.net (The_Sage) hunched over a computer, typing
> feverishly;
> thunder crashed, thee...@azrmci.net (The_Sage) laughed madly, then
> wrote:
>
> >>Reply to article by: Joe Cosby <joec...@mindspring.com>
> >>Date written: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:32:05 -0700
> >>MsgID:<v4qblu01p22qbv6s8...@4ax.com>
> >
> >>>>We can also prove logically, fairly simply, that anything you can
> >>>>comment on exists first in your mind.
> >
> >>>We were not discussing what we could *comment* on, but what actually
> >>>exists or not.
> >
> >>Oh? Could you explain to me what "exists but cannot be commented on?"
> >
> >I'm not going to comment on something I didn't imply. You said that
> >anything we can comment has to exist first in our minds. The universe
> >existed before our minds ever did, and being able to comment on
> >anything does not prove or disprove its existence -- that is an
> >illogical statement.
>
> So you are saying that being able to comment on something doesn't
> prove or disprove it's
JOE, NOT TO KNOW THE MEANING OF WORDS HURTS YOUR CREDIBILITY. WHAT'S THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ITS AND IT'S?
> existence, but you are not implying that there
> are things which exist but cannot be commented on?
>
> And then you are claiming that -I- am being illogical?
LOOKS LIKE ILLITERATE.
frank green
Joe Cosby wrote:
DAMN, BOY! LEARN WORDS. MAYBE YOUR THOUGHTS COULD COME THROUGH.
> reality, and logic is inherently a means of evaluating the
> truth and/or ambiguity of comments, then logic has nothing to do with
> determining reality?
>
TRUTH IS THE AGREEMENT OF SUBJECT WITH THE OBJECT. --KANT
frank green
Joe Cosby wrote:
VERY GOOD. I FORGET, IS HEISENBERG BEFORE OR AFTER KANT? A PHENOMENOLOGIST?
frank green
frank green
The_Sage wrote:
> >Reply to article by: frank green <fran...@attbi.com>
> >Date written: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 17:15:03 GMT
> >MsgID:<3D5697A1...@attbi.com>
>
> >>And you never will since my argument isn't with anyone on language,
> >>just facts. You do know what a fact is, don't you?
>
> >JUST SO YOU GUYS KNOW, A FACT IS AN ACT.
>
> Is what you dreamed last night a fact?
NO, NOT WHAT I DREAMED--EXCEPT AS THE CONENT OF THE DREAM. IF THE DREAM
HAPPENED, THAT IS A FACT; NOT WHAT I DREAMED BUT THAT I DREAMED. IT IS
THE OLD DISTINCTION BETWEEN ESSENCE AND EXISTENCE. THE DREAM HAPPENED.
THAT'S A FACT. A FACT IS AN ACT.
SynchroniCity
Fromm Rey of SynchroniCity:
I have noticed that many other writers seem to use the term
interchangeably.
I don't remember where I read that Jung said about prefering to use the
term "psyche" instead of "mind". It might have something to do with the
notion of "specific" as opposed to "universal". For Jung, the "psyche" is
universal, which includes even material. Whereas "mind" is also separate
from material (though it can be the same thing in a different form) as in
discussions about "mind-body". BUT, 'sometimes' Jung did use them both
interchangeably.
As far as Jung's use of "psyche" and "psychic energy" here are a couple of
interesting tidbits:
Jung was explaining "unextended intensification", transcending the velocity
of light (which would render a body unobservable), elasticity or time tying
in to finally where the "psyche" gets to the point where it is transformed
to relative "percpetible frequencies" or "extensions". He ends with:
"psyche = highest intensity in the smallest space" ( Letter to J.R.
Symythies - 29 Feb 52).
In a Letter to GEBhard Frei (17 Jan 1949), Jung explains "I try, as my
custom is, to approach the problem from the scientific angle. I start with
the formula: E=M, energy equals mass. Energy is not mere quantity, it is
always a quantity of something. If we consdier the psychic processas an
energic one, we give it mass. This mass must be very small, otherwise it
could be demonstrated physically. It becomes demonstrable in
parapsychological phenomena, but shows at the same time that though it obeys
psychic laws it does not obey physical laws, being in part independent of
time and space, which means that psychic energy behaves as though time and
space had only relative validity."
He goes on to say that "Psychic contents in this state act as much OUTSIDE
(italicized) me as IN (italicized) me, just as much OUTSIDE (italicized) of
time as IN (italicized) time."
Jung is pretty consistent throughout his life in that area. The
relationship between the microcosm and MACROcosm. The "seed" of yin is in
yang and vice versa. The "within" and "without". The (s)elf and
(S)elf.. The seed of the spirit is in matter, and vice versa, etc. etc.
etc.
"What is inside of us is greater than that that is in the world."
RE
John Baker
> SAGE, I'M REAL GLAD YOU'VE NEVER BEEN FACE-TO-FACE WITH A DEVIL.
> INNOCENCE IS CHARMING; IT'S HELL TO LOSE; AND HOPE YOU NEVER DO COME
> FACE TO FACE WITH EVIL, BLESS YOU.
Yet another ranting, crossposting kook with a broken caps lock key.
<PLONK!>
Tom
>
> Joe Cosby wrote:
> >
> > "What we see is not nature, but nature exposed to our method of
> > questioning" - Heisenberg
>
> VERY GOOD. I FORGET, IS HEISENBERG BEFORE OR AFTER
> KANT? A PHENOMENOLOGIST?
You could say that. Heisenberg was a physicist, born in 1901. Kant was
born in 1724.
Not very big on the history of science, eh? Well, you're certainly not
alone. Lots of people who like to talk about Jung have that particular
educational deficit.
Tom
I can't seem to find it in any of my etymological texts. Can you cite some
examples from the early sixties in which "paradigm" was used as a verb?
The_Sage
>MsgID:<iuaelus0hoeqqib1j...@4ax.com>
>>>>>I find it very naive of people to think there is only instinctive
>>>>>physical action and no such thing as instinctive thought.
>>>>Is it naive? Or is it that people are offended?
>>>Have you ever been face to face with an angel? Or a devil?
>>No, and neither have you.
>You've never had sex with a conscious woman.
Are you sure that wouldn't be sex with a conscious man?
>Ooh, this is fun, when we can just make up whatever we want!
You can but the rest of us will stick with real life.
The Sage
The_Sage
>Date written: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:29:00 -0700
>MsgID:<fDP59.141$iB3....@news.uswest.net>
>>>Have you ever been face to face with an angel? Or a devil?
>>No, and neither have you.
>"He sees you when you're sleeping
>He knows if you're awake
>He knows if you've been bad or good
>So be good for goodness sake"
I've seen Santa Claus before...he was kissing mommy under the Xmas
tree.
The_Sage
>MsgID:<3D584ECB...@attbi.com>
>SAGE, I'M REAL GLAD YOU'VE NEVER BEEN FACE-TO-FACE WITH A DEVIL.
Why are you glad of that?
>INNOCENCE IS CHARMING; IT'S HELL TO LOSE; AND HOPE YOU NEVER DO COME
>FACE TO FACE WITH EVIL, BLESS YOU.
I come to face with good and evil everyday. It's no big deal.