Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Jungian Philosophy

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 12:06:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 11:56:04 PM, fazz wrote:
I am interested in the theory of "Collective Unconscious".

The collective unconsciousness is unconscious psychic elements the collective shares. It is the foundation of all individual consciousnesses. Each individual may express different and seemingly contrasting elements of it. In some ways, individuals are like islands; and, the collective unconsciousness is like the underlying bedrock.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 12:19:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 12:06:43 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/18/2014 11:56:04 PM, fazz wrote:

This does mean we are all connected. In some sort of primal telepathy through the conduit of emotions.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 12:54:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 12:19:02 AM, fazz wrote:
At 9/19/2014 12:06:43 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/18/2014 11:56:04 PM, fazz wrote:

This does mean we are all connected. In some sort of primal telepathy through the conduit of emotions.

For me, it means we are all connected through common descent. DNA among species varies very little; in fact, it is nearly identical. That which separates your phenotype from any other phenotype is not a lack of genetic coding but your epigenome. It is the mechanism of methylation that determines your genetic expression.

This explains physiological similarities, but I believe psychic phenomena transcends materialism. I also believe we are connected metaphysically; in other words, our oneness is not limited by space and time.
Burls
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 1:06:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Freud on Dreams:

A fragment from a case study reprinted in the Norton Anthology of World Liturature, volume F, Second edition:

"I argued in my book, The Interpretation of Dreams (1900), that every dream is a wish which is represented as fulfilled, that the representation acts as a disguise if the wish is a repressed one, belonging to the unconscious, and that except in the case of children's dreams only an unconscious wish or one that reaches down into the unconscious has the force necessary for a formation of a dream.

I fancy my theory would have been more certain of general acceptance if I had contented myself with maintaining that every dream had a meaning, which could be discovered by means of a certain process of interpretation;and that when the interpretation had been completed the dream could be replaced by thoughts which would fall into place at an easily recognizable point in the waking mental life of the dreamer...

...But instead of this I formulated a generalization according to which the meaning of dreams is limited to a single form, to the representation of wishes, and by so doing I aroused a universal inclination to dissent."

C.J Jung on Freud:

"I even may not give first importance to the question whether our study of the dream gives a scientifically verifiable result; If I do this, I am following an exclusively personal aim, and one which is therefor auto-erotic."

The Study Of The Dream- Modern man chp 3
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 1:06:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 12:54:33 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/19/2014 12:19:02 AM, fazz wrote:
At 9/19/2014 12:06:43 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/18/2014 11:56:04 PM, fazz wrote:

This does mean we are all connected. In some sort of primal telepathy through the conduit of emotions.

in other words, our oneness is not limited by space and time.

Yes, I wish there was some scientific effort by psychologists to study this phenomena. Or at least the science of collective action above & beyond (&not limited by) organized and rational behavior
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 1:11:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 1:06:34 AM, Burls wrote:
Freud on Dreams:

A fragment from a case study reprinted in the Norton Anthology of World Liturature, volume F, Second edition:


"I argued in my book, The Interpretation of Dreams (1900), that every dream is a wish which is represented as fulfilled, that the representation acts as a disguise if the wish is a repressed one, belonging to the unconscious, and that except in the case of children's dreams only an unconscious wish or one that reaches down into the unconscious has the force necessary for a formation of a dream.

I fancy my theory would have been more certain of general acceptance if I had contented myself with maintaining that every dream had a meaning, which could be discovered by means of a certain process of interpretation;and that when the interpretation had been completed the dream could be replaced by thoughts which would fall into place at an easily recognizable point in the waking mental life of the dreamer...

...But instead of this I formulated a generalization according to which the meaning of dreams is limited to a single form, to the representation of wishes, and by so doing I aroused a universal inclination to dissent."

C.J Jung on Freud:

"I even may not give first importance to the question whether our study of the dream gives a scientifically verifiable result; If I do this, I am following an exclusively personal aim, and one which is therefor auto-erotic."

The Study Of The Dream- Modern man chp 3

So Jung hate Freud.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 11:46:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 1:06:45 AM, fazz wrote:
At 9/19/2014 12:54:33 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/19/2014 12:19:02 AM, fazz wrote:
At 9/19/2014 12:06:43 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/18/2014 11:56:04 PM, fazz wrote:

This does mean we are all connected. In some sort of primal telepathy through the conduit of emotions.

in other words, our oneness is not limited by space and time.

Yes, I wish there was some scientific effort by psychologists to study this phenomena. Or at least the science of collective action above & beyond (&not limited by) organized and rational behavior

Most scientists are materialists, and up until recently, I was too. Until I considered the nature of light, I believed everything existed in space and time and contradictions did not exist. However, I still believe light exists in space and time in as far as we can observe it. Yet, according to Einstein's theory, if a photon were to have a perception, traveling at its maximum speed in a vacuum, it would not experience time and, therefore, neither space; the moment of emission would be, simultaneously, the moment of absorption.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 11:50:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 1:26:33 AM, Burls wrote:
Perhaps the Collective Unconscious disagrees with the two of them on the subject of dreams.

Freud did not believe in the collective unconsciousness.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 10:14:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 11:50:16 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/19/2014 1:26:33 AM, Burls wrote:
Perhaps the Collective Unconscious disagrees with the two of them on the subject of dreams.

Freud did not believe in the collective unconsciousness.

But dont you think we are capable of a higher consciousness?
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 10:29:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I do think we have reiched the height of the neoliberal framework. Self-interest as a motive is no longer trendy. We have to move forward. Towards a new form of government. This will require a new form of social movement. Mass movements that can move forward with a higher consciouness of one mind, one body.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 10:37:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 10:14:10 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/19/2014 11:50:16 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/19/2014 1:26:33 AM, Burls wrote:
Perhaps the Collective Unconscious disagrees with the two of them on the subject of dreams.

Freud did not believe in the collective unconsciousness.

But dont you think we are capable of a higher consciousness?

If you mean a consciousness that transcends ourselves, yes. Not only do I believe we are capable of it, I believe it's a reality in our everyday lives. I believe if we truly realized that, we would take off our shoes for we are standing on holy ground for every bush is ablaze with the presence of God.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 10:38:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 10:37:48 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/19/2014 10:14:10 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/19/2014 11:50:16 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/19/2014 1:26:33 AM, Burls wrote:
Perhaps the Collective Unconscious disagrees with the two of them on the subject of dreams.

Freud did not believe in the collective unconsciousness.

But dont you think we are capable of a higher consciousness?

If you mean a consciousness that transcends ourselves, yes. Not only do I believe we are capable of it, I believe it's a reality in our everyday lives. I believe if we truly realized that, we would take off our shoes for we are standing on holy ground for every bush is ablaze with the presence of God.

Ah. What did Jung say on the topic of religion?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 11:11:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 10:38:59 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/19/2014 10:37:48 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/19/2014 10:14:10 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/19/2014 11:50:16 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/19/2014 1:26:33 AM, Burls wrote:
Perhaps the Collective Unconscious disagrees with the two of them on the subject of dreams.

Freud did not believe in the collective unconsciousness.

But dont you think we are capable of a higher consciousness?

If you mean a consciousness that transcends ourselves, yes. Not only do I believe we are capable of it, I believe it's a reality in our everyday lives. I believe if we truly realized that, we would take off our shoes for we are standing on holy ground for every bush is ablaze with the presence of God.

Ah. What did Jung say on the topic of religion?

I'm not versed in everything Jung has written, but from the little knowledge I have of his ideas on religion, he was a very religious and a deeply spiritual person. Yet, religion for Jung was not merely dead relics or static symbols but deeper more interactive yet universal meanings behind the relics and the symbols. Meaning was a common heritage; for Jung believed even though we spoke many different languages, meaning remained the same. Religion had nothing to do with whether one was a theist or an atheist; these designations were incidentals. It was the deeper more profound fears and longings of the collective unconsciousness that really mattered. Personalities were merely the many faces of God.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 12:20:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 11:11:29 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/19/2014 10:38:59 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/19/2014 10:37:48 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/19/2014 10:14:10 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/19/2014 11:50:16 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/19/2014 1:26:33 AM, Burls wrote:
Perhaps the Collective Unconscious disagrees with the two of them on the subject of dreams.

Freud did not believe in the collective unconsciousness.

But dont you think we are capable of a higher consciousness?

If you mean a consciousness that transcends ourselves, yes. Not only do I believe we are capable of it, I believe it's a reality in our everyday lives. I believe if we truly realized that, we would take off our shoes for we are standing on holy ground for every bush is ablaze with the presence of God.

Ah. What did Jung say on the topic of religion?

I'm not versed in everything Jung has written, but from the little knowledge I have of his ideas on religion, he was a very religious and a deeply spiritual person. Yet, religion for Jung was not merely dead relics or static symbols but deeper more interactive yet universal meanings behind the relics and the symbols. Meaning was a common heritage; for Jung believed even though we spoke many different languages, meaning remained the same. Religion had nothing to do with whether one was a theist or an atheist; these designations were incidentals. It was the deeper more profound fears and longings of the collective unconsciousness that really mattered. Personalities were merely the many faces of God.

AND what would Jung say about the nature of violence?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 8:05:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 12:20:56 AM, fazz wrote:
At 9/19/2014 11:11:29 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/19/2014 10:38:59 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/19/2014 10:37:48 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/19/2014 10:14:10 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/19/2014 11:50:16 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/19/2014 1:26:33 AM, Burls wrote:
Perhaps the Collective Unconscious disagrees with the two of them on the subject of dreams.

Freud did not believe in the collective unconsciousness.

But dont you think we are capable of a higher consciousness?

If you mean a consciousness that transcends ourselves, yes. Not only do I believe we are capable of it, I believe it's a reality in our everyday lives. I believe if we truly realized that, we would take off our shoes for we are standing on holy ground for every bush is ablaze with the presence of God.

Ah. What did Jung say on the topic of religion?

I'm not versed in everything Jung has written, but from the little knowledge I have of his ideas on religion, he was a very religious and a deeply spiritual person. Yet, religion for Jung was not merely dead relics or static symbols but deeper more interactive yet universal meanings behind the relics and the symbols. Meaning was a common heritage; for Jung believed even though we spoke many different languages, meaning remained the same. Religion had nothing to do with whether one was a theist or an atheist; these designations were incidentals. It was the deeper more profound fears and longings of the collective unconsciousness that really mattered. Personalities were merely the many faces of God.

AND what would Jung say about the nature of violence?

Jung was not an idealist; in fact, he hated idealism. From what I gather, his take would be violence is a very necessary and real part of life. I don't think he would advocate violence in most cases, but neither would he deny it or the fact it serves a purpose. Just because we don't like something and would rather keep it to the extremes doesn't mean it is useless.

Jung believed that whichever we resisted, persisted. He did not believe in suppressing something, we made it go away. He believed in compensatory mechanisms or the fact the suppressed content would express itself in other ways. Even though violence may express itself in many different forms, either legitimately or illegitimately, it's here to stay.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 1:15:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 8:05:17 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/20/2014 12:20:56 AM, fazz wrote:
At 9/19/2014 11:11:29 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/19/2014 10:38:59 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/19/2014 10:37:48 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/19/2014 10:14:10 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/19/2014 11:50:16 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/19/2014 1:26:33 AM, Burls wrote:
Perhaps the Collective Unconscious disagrees with the two of them on the subject of dreams.

Freud did not believe in the collective unconsciousness.

But dont you think we are capable of a higher consciousness?

If you mean a consciousness that transcends ourselves, yes. Not only do I believe we are capable of it, I believe it's a reality in our everyday lives. I believe if we truly realized that, we would take off our shoes for we are standing on holy ground for every bush is ablaze with the presence of God.

Ah. What did Jung say on the topic of religion?

I'm not versed in everything Jung has written, but from the little knowledge I have of his ideas on religion, he was a very religious and a deeply spiritual person. Yet, religion for Jung was not merely dead relics or static symbols but deeper more interactive yet universal meanings behind the relics and the symbols. Meaning was a common heritage; for Jung believed even though we spoke many different languages, meaning remained the same. Religion had nothing to do with whether one was a theist or an atheist; these designations were incidentals. It was the deeper more profound fears and longings of the collective unconsciousness that really mattered. Personalities were merely the many faces of God.

AND what would Jung say about the nature of violence?

Jung was not an idealist; in fact, he hated idealism. From what I gather, his take would be violence is a very necessary and real part of life. I don't think he would advocate violence in most cases, but neither would he deny it or the fact it serves a purpose. Just because we don't like something and would rather keep it to the extremes doesn't mean it is useless.

Jung believed that whichever we resisted, persisted. He did not believe in suppressing something, we made it go away. He believed in compensatory mechanisms or the fact the suppressed content would express itself in other ways. Even though violence may express itself in many different forms, either legitimately or illegitimately, it's here to stay.

Ironically, quoting Jung infamous friend and rival Sigmund Freud: Violence is the supression of Violence. IT is precisely because we condone acts of aggression as outside the Law that our society suffers from murder, & rape.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 2:30:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 1:15:43 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/20/2014 8:05:17 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/20/2014 12:20:56 AM, fazz wrote:
At 9/19/2014 11:11:29 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/19/2014 10:38:59 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/19/2014 10:37:48 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/19/2014 10:14:10 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/19/2014 11:50:16 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/19/2014 1:26:33 AM, Burls wrote:
Perhaps the Collective Unconscious disagrees with the two of them on the subject of dreams.

Freud did not believe in the collective unconsciousness.

But dont you think we are capable of a higher consciousness?

If you mean a consciousness that transcends ourselves, yes. Not only do I believe we are capable of it, I believe it's a reality in our everyday lives. I believe if we truly realized that, we would take off our shoes for we are standing on holy ground for every bush is ablaze with the presence of God.

Ah. What did Jung say on the topic of religion?

I'm not versed in everything Jung has written, but from the little knowledge I have of his ideas on religion, he was a very religious and a deeply spiritual person. Yet, religion for Jung was not merely dead relics or static symbols but deeper more interactive yet universal meanings behind the relics and the symbols. Meaning was a common heritage; for Jung believed even though we spoke many different languages, meaning remained the same. Religion had nothing to do with whether one was a theist or an atheist; these designations were incidentals. It was the deeper more profound fears and longings of the collective unconsciousness that really mattered. Personalities were merely the many faces of God.

AND what would Jung say about the nature of violence?

Jung was not an idealist; in fact, he hated idealism. From what I gather, his take would be violence is a very necessary and real part of life. I don't think he would advocate violence in most cases, but neither would he deny it or the fact it serves a purpose. Just because we don't like something and would rather keep it to the extremes doesn't mean it is useless.

Jung believed that whichever we resisted, persisted. He did not believe in suppressing something, we made it go away. He believed in compensatory mechanisms or the fact the suppressed content would express itself in other ways. Even though violence may express itself in many different forms, either legitimately or illegitimately, it's here to stay.

Ironically, quoting Jung infamous friend and rival Sigmund Freud: Violence is the supression of Violence. IT is precisely because we condone acts of aggression as outside the Law that our society suffers from murder, & rape.

I believe that to be very true. In murdering or raping our victim, we must suppress his, or her, will of opposition.