Carl Jung

[Chaigidel]

one of the greatest thinkers ever in psychology and basically the father of "sensible" Mysticism ( just opinion)

discuss the master

and share any strange infoz about him

[Ummon]

Well, you see, that's complicated. I advise anyone interested to read his non-biography: Dreams, Memories, Reflections. (I translated the title, check it out).

[Chaigidel]

what are his connections with the many high society mystery cults that sprang up around the same time?

[Ummon]

what are his connections with the many high society mystery cults that sprang up around the same time?

Perhaps some, but he was talking of another thing entirely. I joke about his mysticism, and mine, but he was no mystic. Or even... Well, that's too complicated.

[Da Skinna]

Hmm, I finished reading "Pilgrim" last night, he's one of the characters.

Great book, by the way, and a very interesting man, Jung was. I kinda like his ideas, and his way of thinking, it wasn't so dogmatic as Freud's...

[Chaigidel]

well I realize he was taken out of context by many of those groups but almost every person involved in the occult at that time looked to jung because members of occult societies generally consider themselves to be seeking the purest truth--- sacred truth and what not

but i guess we should read te book

[Denny Crane!]

Well upon Ummons recommendation its in my list to read from a while ago but I am highly skeptical of some of his writings, his writings I believe are definitly worth reading but although he emphasises the fact that we rely to much on science and logic I wouldn't mind seeing some of his claims in the theory of collective unconscious validated in some sort of proper scientifically led study.

Obviously there is a lot of worthy material as he is on the curriculum of every psychology major and some humanities, I'll leave it there until I've read more.

Peter

[Ummon]

Don't worry about validation: it's coming.

[Denny Crane!]

Don't worry about validation: it's coming.

We shall see, its equally likely that its damnation is coming to. Studies aren't always positive, I assume this is what you are reffering to.

I can't see any way it could be possible personally but I will make any report a top priority to read upon its release.

Peter

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Jung's main talent was his ability to wrap woolly-minded magical thinking up in pseudo scientific jargon to make it look more profound than it is. His "arguments" for "syncronicity", for example, are utterly inane.

Last week I was reading a magazine with the TV news on in the background. At the precise second I read the word "audit" the newsreader said the same word. Jung would say this was probably significant and an example of "synchronicity". But this ignores the fact that I had read several thousand words before that second which didn't correspond to anything the newsreader had happened to be saying in the background. The only reason the coincidence of the reading and hearing of "audit" at the same time seemed "important" is our brains are hard-wired to detect patterns or seeming patterns, even if they aren't actually real patterns at all.

People who follow Jung invest events like thinking of a friend and then having that friend phone you seconds later with vast significance. But given the enormous number of things we think every day and the equally enormous number of things we experience, it's only a matter of time before - by chance - two of these things coincide in some way that sparks a "connection!" response in the pattern matching parts of our brain. To assume this seeming connection is a real one rather than a false perception is pure magical thinking.

Jung's "psychology" is the foundation stone of the sillier fringes of psychology as a discipline. It's where a useful social science blurs into New Age kookery.

[mrjesushat]

Jung's main talent was his ability to wrap woolly-minded magical thinking up in pseudo scientific jargon to make it look more profound than it is. His "arguments" for "syncronicity", for example, are utterly inane.

Yes. Jung may have been the greatest Wizard to ever live.

Last week I was reading a magazine with the TV news on in the background. At the precise second I read the word "audit" the newsreader said the same word. Jung would say this was probably significant and an example of "synchronicity".

Indeed. Now look at how hard you have to work to dispell the notion that something important happened:

But this ignores the fact that I had read several thousand words before that second which didn't correspond to anything the newsreader had happened to be saying in the background. The only reason the coincidence of the reading and hearing of "audit" at the same time seemed "important" is our brains are hard-wired to detect patterns or seeming patterns, even if they aren't actually real patterns at all.

From an analytic standpoint, all you said there was, "blah blah, blah, blah, i'm terrified by the concept of synchronicity, blah blah, blah".

People who follow Jung invest events like thinking of a friend and then having that friend phone you seconds later with vast significance.

Broad and inaccurate generalization.

But given the enormous number of things we think every day and the equally enormous number of things we experience, it's only a matter of time before -

-we realize that all levels of consciousness are connected?

by chance - two of these things coincide in some way that sparks a "connection!" response in the pattern matching parts of our brain.

Oh, how disappointing. By the way, there's no such thing as chance.

To assume this seeming connection is a real one rather than a false perception is pure magical thinking.

Yeah. That's how magic works. Magic, like God, will be present whether invited or not.

Jung's "psychology" is the foundation stone of the sillier fringes of psychology as a discipline. It's where a useful social science blurs into New Age kookery.

Jung coined the term, "New Age". This appears to be the only factual element in your entire diatribe on "Science" versus "Magical Thinking". Such vehemence implies a fear of the theories you seek to reject. Why do these ideas frighten you? Perhaps this is the best place to begin...What will happen if Science proves not to be the greatest process ever developed by humans?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Indeed. Now look at how hard you have to work to dispell the notion that something important happened:

Er, I had to "work hard"? All I had to do was point out that our brains are wired to pay attention to things that seem to be connected. Occam's Razor tells me that this is rather more likely than some cosmic, magical significance in the fact that I read a word at the same time as I heard someone on TV say it.

But this ignores the fact that I had read several thousand words before that second which didn't correspond to anything the newsreader had happened to be saying in the background. The only reason the coincidence of the reading and hearing of "audit" at the same time seemed "important" is our brains are hard-wired to detect patterns or seeming patterns, even if they aren't actually real patterns at all.

From an analytic standpoint, all you said there was, "blah blah, blah, blah, i'm terrified by the concept of synchronicity, blah blah, blah".

From a debating standpoint, all you did there was stick your fingers in your ears and shout "ICAN'THEARYOUICAN'THEARYOUJUNGWASRIGHTANDYOUAREWRONGSOTHEREPOOPYPANTS!!"

By the way, there's no such thing as chance.

eH?

Yeah. That's how magic works. Magic, like God, will be present whether invited or not.

And if you don't believe in the Great Mystical Pink Unicorn then you obviously don't have enough faith.

Such vehemence implies a fear of the theories you seek to reject. Why do these ideas frighten you?

They don't. And what does your post-consisting-entirely-of-baseless-assertions-and-no-logical-refutation-of-what-I-said imply about you?

Perhaps this is the best place to begin...What will happen if Science proves not to be the greatest process ever developed by humans?

And how exactly will this "proof" of science's weakness manifest itself? Will reason and logic also be consigned to the garbage can? When and how will these wonders occur?

[Chaigidel]

a little apocalyptic thought in ummon?

[Ummon]

Not apocalyptic at all. I happen to be doing just that. Helluva job, anyhow.

[Chaigidel]

well its all a matter of perception-- the perception of significance is perhaps important on a personal basis-- all connection is formed from a perception of connection( mentally)

but this in no way means that we are not all connected intrinsically and that all things move together whether they want too or not.

[Denny Crane!]

Ah I see when a religous person comes out and says, "it is so, cos it is!" then its laughable, wrap it up in psychological theory and you can get away with murder.

Peter

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Ah I see when a religous person comes out and says, "it is so, cos it is!" then its laughable, wrap it up in psychological theory and you can get away with murder.

Yep. But if you point out that the Jungian emperor is, in fact, stark naked, we get people (above) replying "it is so, cos it is!". Despite all the pseudo scientific jargon, this stuff is just more faith-based hand waving.

[Ummon]

I would advise prudence in detractors. The man was right on so many things that it's astonishing. The complexity of this matter is such that, it is difficult for anyone who doesn't know at least vast portions of contemporary science, to understand it.

And: Magic has very little to do with anything but the appearance of Jung's work.

Of course, that's debateable. In all honesty, I won't enter such debate here.

EDIT: A sidenote. If you track the mentions and quotes of Jung in recent scientific publications, you will maybe spot an interesting trend.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

I would advise prudence in detractors. The man was right on so many things that it's astonishing.

Such as?

EDIT: A sidenote. If you track the mentions and quotes of Jung in recent scientific publications, you will maybe spot an interesting trend.

You know, your posts would be a hell of a lot better if they were lighter on arch, vague and mysterious allusions left hanging in the air and far heavier on detailed information and close argument. Still, I suppose vague gestures are a lot easier for anyone else to dissect and scrutinise ... :hmmm:

[Ummon]

Such as?

Now I suppose you are not reading him beyond a literary interest. I will mention a few things which are innocuous: the work of verbal associations, let's stick to it as it is scientific. Current analysis of language/literature, follows a very similar approach, by use of Petri Nets and alphabetic concordances as an additional tool.

These tools are used also in the study of many psychological items, by people who, misquoting and misunderstanding Jung's own words, refer to their results as if they were in opposition to his findings. Unfortunately for them, the opposite is true.

I will not add more on this subject though.

You know, your posts would be a hell of a lot better if they were lighter on arch, vague and mysterious allusions left hanging in the air and far heavier on detailed information and close argument. Still, I suppose vague gestures are a lot easier for anyone else to dissect and scrutinise ... :hmmm:

Or perhaps I do not for various reasons, wish the fullness of what I say to be dissected and scrutinized. You see, this is a message board, we post here for fun. Serious research interests though may cause useful benefits in real life. Two entirely uncomparable levels.