| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1011
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
 Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 4:45 am Post subject: |
 |
|
You know, some people might get really pissed at being asked to read endless passages from the Bible in a book supposedly about psychology.
http://www.naderlibrary.com/lit.jungpsychtypes.toc.htm
| Psychological Types, by Carl Jung wrote: | "Like as a woman with child,
That draweth near the time of her delivery,
Is in pain, and crieth out in her pangs;
So have we been in Thy sight, O Lord.
We have been with child, we have been in pain,
We have as it were brought forth wind;
We have not wrought any deliverance in the earth;
Neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen.
Thy dead shall live, my dead bodies shall arise."
-- Isaiah, 26, 17 ff. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1011
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
This book is the very definition of "Illuminati," i.e., pushing every goddamned religion in the world on you. Can you believe they have the nerve to tell us to be like children? Talk about a counter-evolutionary "psychology." Let them be the fucking children, and I'll tell them what to do. "Go sit in the corner, mother-fuckers!"
Now we're getting somewhere.
| Psychological Types, by Carl Jung wrote: | | "Being one with Tao resembles the spiritual condition of a child." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1011
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
What can you say but, "WOW! -- What a load of bullshit!
| Psychological Types, by Carl Jung wrote: | From the point we have now reached, the primordial image which contributed to the solution of the problem in Wagner's Parsifal is no longer hard to understand; the suffering proceeds from the tension of the opposites represented by the Grail and the power of Klingsor, the latter consisting in the possession of the holy spear. Beneath the spell of Klingsor is Kundry, the instinctive, nature-cleaving life-force which Amfortas lacks. Parsifal delivers the libido from the state of restless compulsion, because in the first place he does not succumb to her power, but in the second because he himself is detached from the Grail. Amfortas is with the Grail; whereby he suffers, because he lacks the other. Parsifal possesses naught of either; he is 'nirdvandva', free from the opposites; hence he is also the deliverer, the bestower of healing and renewed life-force, the reconciler of the opposites, i.e. the light, celestial, feminine, of the Grail, and the dark, earthly, masculine, of the spear. The death of Kundry may be freely interpreted as the release of the libido from the nature-clinging, undomesticated form (the "form of the bull": compare above), which falls from her as a lifeless mould, while energy bursts forth as newly-streaming life in the glowing of the Grail.
Through his partly involuntary abstention from the opposites, Parsifal causes the damming up by which the new 'fall', i.e. the new manifestation of energy is made possible. One might easily be misled by the unmistakably sexual language into a one-sided interpretation, by which the union of the spear and the vessel of the Grail would merely signify a liberation of sexuality. That it is not merely a question of sexuality, the fate of Amfortas makes clear, since it was precisely his rechute to a nature-bound, brutish attitude, which was the cause of his suffering and brought about the loss of his power. His seduction by Kundry has the value of a symbolic act, which would signify that it is not sexuality that deals such wounds so much as an attitude of nature-clinging compulsion, an irresolute yielding to biological temptation. This attitude is equivalent to the supremacy of the animal part of our psyche.
The sacrificial wound that is destined for the beast strikes the man who is overcome by the beast (for the sake of man's further development). The fundamental problem, as I have already pointed out in my book Psychology of the Unconscious, is not sexuality per se, but the domestication of the libido, which concerns sexuality only in so far as it is one of the most important and most dangerous forms of libido expression.
If, in the case of Amfortas and the union of spear and Grail, only the sexual problem is discerned, we reach an insoluble contradiction, since the thing that harms is also the renedy that heals. But only when we see the opposites as reconciled upon a higher plane is such a paradox either true or permissible; a realization, namely, that it is not a question of sexuality, either in this form or that, but purely a question of the attitude by which every activity, including the sexual, is regulated. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1011
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What do you think about this argument of Colin Wilson's, that the bird who had never seen a hawk freaked out when he saw one because he had the "archetype" of the hawk in his mind? Isn't it pure anthropomorphism to attribute any human reason to a bird's responses or actions? We don't have wings; we don't fly; we don't have hollow bones. We don't know why a bird does what it does. Isn't that a lot like saying a bird lands on the Mormon Tabernacle because it's inspired by Joseph Smith, or a bird shits on cars because it thinks we should fly in airplanes, or a bird lands on a statue because it's inspired by art? Maybe it was because the hawk WASN'T an image in its mind that the bird freaked out. And is that what a scientist does, "invents" theories.
| C.G. Jung, Lord of the Underworld, by Colin Wilson wrote: | | So his line of attack on Freudian pessimism and 'reductionism' would have to begin from the notion that the mysterious underground forces are not as dangerous and menacing as Freud believed. He was the son of a clergyman, and his interest in St. Augustine and the early Church Fathers reveals that he believed that the experience of God and religion could not be reduced to disguised sexual impulses. He was a lover of literature, and he certainly did not believe that the states of mind induced by poetry are mere 'escapism'. His problem was to rescue these from Freud. We have seen that it was his reading of a book on mythology that gave him the idea of how this could be done. He invented a still deeper layer of the unconscious, containing the basic myths of mankind. To modern ears, this does not sound implausible. We know, for example, that certain finches were bred for generations on the Galapagos Islands, where they never saw a predator. But when their descendants were taken back to California, they reacted with instant alarm at the sight of a hawk. Obviously, the image of a hawk was somehow encoded in their genes -- or, as Jung would say, in the collective unconscious of the finch species. So why not similar images of heroes, gods, demons and so on in the human mind? The answer is: because it is hard to see any need for them. It mattered to the finch's survival to recognize a hawk. It is hard to see what difference it could make to a human being to think that the wind comes from a tube that hangs down from the sun ... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1011
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's hard to get beyond things that don't make sense. You can't get any closure. So you keep probing, probing, thinking that eventually you'll get it, but if you're talking about philosophy, if you've really tried and gotten nowhere with it, there's probably nothing to get. It's not rocket science. You don't have to have a degree to know what they are talking about. If it doesn't make sense, it's probably because it can't make sense. Because it was written to be irrational.
I want to finish reading the introduction to Jung's "Red Book," written by Sonu Shamdasani, but I'm having a hard time jumping all the hurdles, concepts like the following. Shamdasani is obviously a smooth operator in that he can just blithely say ridiculous things and pretend that there's nothing wrong. And it's obviously part of someone's black magic to make things so inpenetrable that you think there's something "deep" down there if only you could see. You need to pay money to get their guidance.
| The Red Book, by Carl Jung wrote: | Jung wrote that it was a difficult task to differentiate the personal and collective psyche. One of the factors one came up against was the persona -- one's "mask" or "role." This represented the segment of the collective psyche that one mistakenly regarded as individual. When one analyzed this, the personality dissolved into the collective psyche, which resulted in the release of a stream of fantasies: "All the treasures of mythological thinking and feeling are unlocked." The difference between this state and insanity lay in the fact that it was intentional.
Two possibilities arose: one could attempt to regressively restore persona and return to the prior state, but it was impossible to get rid of the unconscious. Alternatively, one could accept the condition of godlikeness. However, there was a third way: the hermeneutic treatment of creative fantasies. This resulted in a synthesis of the individual with the collective psyche, which revealed the individual lifeline. This was the process of individuation. In a subsequent undated revision of this paper, Jung introduced the notion of the anima, as a counterpart to that of the persona. He regarded both of these as "subject-imagoes." Here, he defined the anima as "how the subject is seen by the collective unconscious." |
The idea here is that there is a real individual and a fake individual. The fake individual Jung calls the "persona," ones "mask or role," that is "segmented" from the collective consciousness. No non-mask, non-role, non-collective, individual is admitted. Like a real self that is whole and not part of the collective, that isn't conditioned or fake. An individual existing apart from the mask and the conditioning and the collective. That possibility isn't even hinted at. Like the issue of Building 7 for the 9/11 Commission. They just don't even address it. You don't bring out the smoking gun when you're defending the case.
No, the "individual" is when the individual merges with the collective unconscious. That's what Jung calls "individuation." Most people wouldn't call a small thing merging with a bigger thing "individuation." Sounds like Orwell, to me. Simply defining the word backwards, and getting the benefit of our mistaken notions. Secretly riding negative concepts on a positive concept.
Supposedly there are three ways to break through the persona, but the first one makes absolutely no sense: "regressively restore persona and return to the prior state." What does that mean? The second one is even crazier: "accept the condition of godlikeness." What? I thought there was a problem, which doesn't involve already being gods. Are we talking about what I think we're talking about, which is the problem of the persona? I'm not sure. Shamdasani isn't clear. We're on the bridge now, going to nowhere. Then supposedly there's a third way: merge the individual with the collective psyche to "reveal the individual lifeline." How are you going to find an individual lifeline in the collective pscyhe? What's an "individual lifeline" anyway? We're talking nonsense here.
Then we come to another word Jung has made up: "Anima." Which supposedly is a "counterpart" to the "persona," which two together he calls "subject-imagoes." So many new words, but do they describe real things? L. Ron Hubbard, another pseudo-psychologist, was fond of making up new words, called neologisms. This is common in schizophrenics. Jung says that "anima" is "how the subject is seen by the collective unconscious." I keep coming across this idea in my reading of fascists: that some concept, like state, collective unconscious, God, or Frankenstein, looks down or across or up and judges the individual.
Well, it seems to me that he's simply saying, Let's make sure the propaganda out there in public, which is what I believe he means by "collective unconscious," degrades the individual, or defines the individual in a communal way rather than an individual way. They simply call it "individual," but really, it's the "collective unconscious." They have to do that to overturn the idea of democracy and individual rights. We're nobodies; don't expect anything from the State; bow down to your leader, etc.
I saw this crazy movie at Casa Video the other day, in the documentary section. I can't remember the title of it, but the blurb on the back went something like this: "What if everything you were ever told and believed about your Self truly existing weren't true, and you really don't exist at all."
Colin Wilson said one intelligent thing in his book about Carl Jung, Lord of the Underworld, and that was that our mental health entirely depends upon having a healthy self-image. Just exactly how can we have a healthy self-image when they want to destroy our personal identity, and replace it with a collective unconscious? Wow, that's some vague identity stuff they are trying to push on us. Basically, they're saying, "Just watch TV and do what you're told -- become part of the collective unconscious."
It occurs to me, considering the power of the irrational message to confuse, trap, and dominate -- just think about the White House memos condoning torture and how far they went -- the power of new concepts like "Enemy Combatant," "Failed State," "Weapons of mass destruction," "asymmetrical warfare," to be innocent until proven guilty, to sail along until every appeal has been exhausted and it's been decided by the Supreme Court, that the Military, specifically the PsyOps division of say, Army Intelligence, or NATO, would need a crazy person to lead the way. Like the Inquisitors during the Inquisition. Someone like Carl Jung, who has to wrestle with his madness, someone like Ram Dass, who has to wrestle with his naivete and pampered ego, or any Masonic/Satantist guy with TIDS (see article here: ) Aleister Crowley was a perfect candidate, Albert Pike, Michael Aquino, Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo. There seem to be plenty of crazies to furnish any group who can afford them. And even really nice people can spew out the biggest bullshit if they're religious, superstitious, magical, mythological, alchemical, astrological, theosophical. If NATO were going to solicit someone to head the PsyOps department, the help wanted ad might say something like: LOOKING FOR REALLY MEGALOMANICAL GRANDIOSE-DELUDED APPLICANTS WITH GOD COMPLEX WHO CAN REALLY SPIN A LINE OF SHIT. And Carl Jung would know he'd be perfect for the job. And that he has the moxie to push aside such illustrious contenders as Sigmund Freud. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1011
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's an ourorbos. You don't actually get anywhere. The inner is the outer. Individuation is the collective. You go inside to get away from yourself, to get into the collective, to get away from the collective, to get back in to the collective. Shamdasani says: "This suggests that his break with social conformity to pursue his "individuation" had led him to the view that he had to produce socially realizable values as an expiation." Apparently, you can NEVER not be concerned with the demands of the collective in your "individuation." This is another example of the Rosicrucian "Reconciling of Opposites," as in Orwell's "1984:" WAR IS PEACE; FREEDOM IS SLAVERY; IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. This concept -- reconciling the opposites -- is the evil spell that produces the required insanity. So it makes sense for the invisible government to take its members from the Rosicrucians. That way everything can be perfectly insane, and we can all go to hell.
| Red Book, by Carl Jung wrote: | The vivid description of the vicissitudes of the state of godlikeness mirror some of Jung's affective states during his confrontation with the unconscious. The notion of the differentiation of the persona and its analysis corresponds to the opening section of Liber Novus, where Jung sets himself apart from his role and achievements and attempts to reconnect with his soul. The release of mythological fantasies is precisely what ensued in his case, and the hermeneutic treatment of creative fantasies was what he presented in layer two of Liber Novus. The differentiation of the personal and impersonal unconscious provided a theoretical understanding of Jung's mythological fantasies: it suggests that he did not view them as stemming from his personal unconscious but from the inherited collective psyche. If so, his fantasies stemmed from a layer of the psyche that was a collective human inheritance, and were not simply idiosyncratic or arbitrary.
In October of the same year, Jung presented two talks to the Psychological Club. The first was titled "Adaptation." This took two forms: adaptation to outer and inner conditions. The "inner" was understood to designate the unconscious. Adaptation to the "inner" led to the demand for individuation, which was contrary to adaptation to others. Answering this demand and the corresponding break with conformity led to a tragic guilt that required expiation and called for a new "collective function," because the individual had to produce values that could serve as a substitute for his absence from society. These new values enabled one to make reparation to the collective. Individuation was for the few. Those who were insufficiently creative should rather reestablish collective conformity with a society. The individual had not only to create new values, but also socially recognizable ones, as society had a "right to expect realizable values." [154]
Read in terms of Jung's situation, this suggests that his break with social conformity to pursue his "individuation" had led him to the view that he had to produce socially realizable values as an expiation. This led to a dilemma: would the form in which Jung embodied these new values in Liber Novus be socially acceptable and recognizable? This commitment to the demands of society separated Jung from the anarchism of the Dadaists.
The second talk was on "Individuation and collectivity." He argued that individuation and collectivity were a pair of opposites related by guilt. Society demanded imitation. Through the process of imitation, one could gain access to values that were one's own. In analysis, "Through imitation the patient learns individuation, because it reactivates his own values." [155] It is possible to read this as a comment on the role of imitation in the analytic treatments of those of his patients whom Jung had now encouraged to embark on similar processes of development. The claim that this process evoked the patient's preexisting values was a counter to the charge of suggestion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1011
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What is very, very clear is that the "collective unconscious" is nothing other than society, culture, the "state." We are to become ONE with society, unify our mind with our government, and achieve "individuation" in the collective. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot more to Carl Jung than this Communism, other than the fascist idea that we should perfect our irrationality ("shadow side") through active imagination, like Luis Bunuel in his L'Age d'Or:
http://www.naderlibrary.com/ageofgold.toc.htm
| The Red Book, by Carl Jung wrote: | | "The training consists first of all in systematic exercises for eliminating critical attention, thus producing a vacuum in consciousness." One commenced by concentrating on a particular mood, and attempting to become as conscious as possible of all fantasies and associations that came up in connection with it. The aim was to allow fantasy free play, without departing from the initial affect in a free associative process. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1011
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
It just occurred to me that some self-appointed "world-leaders" might consider it their duty to make bad things happen in the world to accord with the Bible and people's belief in it. So by believing in the Bible, people may be encouraging corrupt people to bring about the horrible visions of, say, Revelations. Christian belief could have very negative consequences for all of us. It's not limited to your head, or your heart. Because you've signed on to a group belief system. And what are the chances that someone isn't taking advantage of your sacred belief? Isn't sacred belief what motivates all those young, ignorant Muslim boys to strap a bomb on their back and walk into a crowded public area? I give the example of Muslim boys since we Americans can't see the mote in our own eyes, but only those targeted by our never-ending, always transforming racial hatred. Group ideas suck. They cause racism.
Get out of your group, whatever it is, and be an individual. Stop making it so easy for people to persecute you because of your group identity. Insist to everyone you meet that racism has been completely discredited as a concept or a fact. Group identification is legitimate only when you acquiesce. We'd all be better off insisting that we are and should be treated as individuals. But then, we'd actually have to BE individuals in order to earn the credit. That means renouncing allegiance to any group.
But you're afraid to stand on your own two feet, did you say? Man and woman evolved for billions of years standing on their own two feet. It's only recently that this group-aberration-thing got started.
And have you ever thought about all those secret oaths that our government leaders took as members of some competing belief system, other than the Constitution? It's those secrets that bother me. The oaths people take while standing in the inner sanctuary of their group temple. That make them secretly say, "Fuck the American Constitution!" For whatever reason. What does it matter which of the millions they had? What matters is that they don't work for the people of America. And then, because it's secret, we don't know about it!
But -- little luck that we'll change that situation, right? So we're fucked. I could give you a lot of reasons why we're fucked.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1011
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2012 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think some fantasy is okay and good, if it is self-generated, like when you're feeling desperate about the world not being good enough, or else simply creative, and wanting to create a better world in your mind, but when it becomes an onslaught directed at you from society, like in all the movies these days, it becomes cruel, and you find yourself struggling to reestablish your identity. It shouldn't be hard to know who you are and where you are in the world. The Illuminati go on and on about fantasy, as being some kind of supremely positive thing, superior to reality in all ways, superior in reality in all ways -- they are the irrationalists, after all -- but I see the sadistic, ever-present nihlism of their method. Where do you go after being bombarded with people who have the abilities to fly through space, and kick their opponent into far walls, where magic lasers appear in their hands, and fire flows from their fingertrips, and fire burns in their eyes, and they have super-human abilities to do anything they want?
Sort of the oppositve of meditation. At least of the Zen/Dzogchen type.
What's better than simply doing nothing?
How else are you going to feel who you are?
The Illuminati also go on and on about feeling, also in opposition to thinking. But how can you feel in fantasy-land? I mean, really feel? Feeling is about being here on this earth. That Buddha, "the earth is my witness" kind of thing. Witness to his enlightenment? No, witness to his existence.
But let's turn "him" into a girl. "Him" is so boring.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1011
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aion, by Carl Jung wrote: | | We understand the ego as the complex factor to which all conscious contents are related....The relation of a psychic content to the ego forms the criterion of its consciousness, for no content can be conscious unless it is represented to a subject. |
The ego is a "complex factor," while it is the "contents" that are "conscious"? The "content" is "psychic", and "conscious" by being "represented" to the subject?
What a magnificent elevating of the Thing over the person, like during Hurricane Katrina, "Don't touch those foodstuffs, you starving persons." Both Communist and Capitalist. What a marvelous reconciliation of opposites with which to start his book "Aion." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Home
Search
Log in
naderlibrary.com
