Carl G. Jung

[elijahcraig]

http://www.cgjungpage.org/fordhamintro.html

This is an introduction to the psychology of Carl Gustav Jung.

He came up with the idea of collective unconscious (summary of that theory:)


Because myths are a direct expression of the collective unconscious, they are found in similar forms among all peoples and in all ages, and when man loses the capacity for myth- making, he loses touch with the creative forces of his being. Religion, poetry, folk-lore, and fairy-tales, depend also on this same capacity. The central figures in all religions are archetypal in character, but as in the myth, consciousness has had a share in shaping the material. In primitive cults this is much less than in the higher and more developed religions, so that their archetypal nature is clearer. The most direct expression of the collective unconscious is to be found when the archetypes, as primordial images, appear in dreams, unusual states of mind, or psychotic fantasies. These images seem then to possess a power and energy of their own - they move and speak, they perceive and have purposes - they fascinate us and drive us to action which is entirely against our conscious intention. They inspire both creation and destruction, a work of art or an outburst of mob frenzy, for they are 'the hidden treasure upon which mankind ever and anon has drawn, and from which it has raised up its gods and demons, and all those potent and mighty thoughts without which man ceases to be man'.(2) The unconscious therefore, in Jung's view, is not merely a cellar where man dumps his rubbish, but the source of consciousness and of the creative and destructive spirit of mankind.


I would like you to read up on Jung and give me your opinion on his theories.

[redstar2000]

I would like you to read up on Jung and give me your opinion on his theories.

Total crapola!


Because myths are a direct expression of the collective unconscious, they are found in similar forms among all peoples and in all ages...

The human condition is fundamentally "similar among all peoples and in all ages", the material conditions of human life are "similar among all peoples, etc.", the search for explanation even when the tools of explanation (science) have not yet been invented is "similar among all peoples, etc.".

People invent mythologies when they have nothing else they can do...as soon as rational alternatives present themselves, mythology begins to fade.


...and when man loses the capacity for myth-making, he loses touch with the creative forces of his being.

No, s/he applies her/his "creative forces" to the real world.


Religion, poetry, folk-lore, and fairy-tales, depend also on this same capacity.

So does human sacrifice, cannibalism, temple prostitution, witch-burning, and a host of other activities that civilized people no longer pursue.

Good!


The most direct expression of the collective unconscious is to be found when the archetypes, as primordial images, appear in dreams, unusual states of mind, or psychotic fantasies.

When the human brain suffers from temporary or permanent electro-chemical malfunction, the particular cultural artifacts of that human may be utilized or elaborated upon.

That's not the same as rational thought.


The unconscious therefore, in Jung's view, is not merely a cellar where man dumps his rubbish, but the source of consciousness and of the creative and destructive spirit of mankind.

I believe the consensus at the present time is that the "unconscious" enjoys the same standing among scientists as the "soul"--neither one of them even exists at all.

Pure crapola!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Umoja]

I sadly don't own and Jung books, and have been meaning to finish reading "Seven Sermons of the Dead" (Jung's Gnostic Gospel) and the commentary on it by Stephen Hoeller. From what I've read one thing stood out to me.

Jung believes that, another thing that gives power to the theory of collective subconscious is near death experiences. For some reason, they all follow the same pattern, and most seem to have similar religious imagery. It's as if it's something built into the human mind to compensate with dying maybe, or something equally weird. I know Redstar would claim this can easily be explained scientifically, but even if the lack of oxygen causes a person to see light, it's odd that they all percieve the light the same, and see religious figures the same.

Mythologies are an artistic expression. They are never meant to be true, that's why they are Myth's. They are meant to describe a certain situation, and relate a certain moral in a religious context. Jung was not a Socialist to my knowledge, but he didn't say "The material conditions of all people are the same", or something along those lines. Because everyone knows that's not true, but what he is saying is that although we may have built up a complex society, it's still a society centered on humans.

Finally, the unconscious does exist, and it's rubbish to think otherwise. Do you ever have Lucid Dreams? If our mind is completely developed around the pysche, how come we have no control in dreams, and little control over the content. How come some parts of our memory only resurface in dreams, how come we sleepwalk? I mean, how can you say that the unconscious doesn't exist. We have more reason to believe it does, then it doesn't.

[redstar2000]

Jung believes that, another thing that gives power to the theory of collective subconscious is near death experiences. For some reason, they all follow the same pattern, and most seem to have similar religious imagery.

I think it quite possible that the dying brain (oxygen-starvation?) would generate similar illusions...borrowed, of course, from the person's own culture. A dying Hindu or Buddhist wouldn't "see" Jesus and a dying Christian wouldn't "see" the Dalai Lama.

There's nothing particularly "odd" about this...human brains are all pretty much alike when it comes to dying. When humans suffer broken bones, they're all pretty much alike in healing...but no one has (yet) claimed any mystical "significance" for that phenomenon.


Mythologies are an artistic expression. They are never meant to be true, that's why they are Myths.

I think that within their cultural context, they were believed to be literally true...although there may have been some private skepticism.

It's only since the 19th century that the idea of "mythology" has been extended to cover all non-scientific explanations of the universe.


Finally, the unconscious does exist, and it's rubbish to think otherwise. Do you ever have Lucid Dreams? If our mind is completely developed around the pysche, how come we have no control in dreams, and little control over the content? How come some parts of our memory only resurface in dreams, how come we sleepwalk? I mean, how can you say that the unconscious doesn't exist. We have more reason to believe it does, than it doesn't.

You don't demonstrate the existence of something simply by making a list of the things it is "supposed" to "explain".

I'm quite sure there is an electro-chemical explanation for all the things that you listed...everything that's been discovered about the brain so far has taken the form of electro-chemical activity.

On the other hand, no evidence has emerged that the brain "contains" an "unconscious"...in fact, no one can even say what an "unconscious" might look like. We've identified the part of the brain that processes visual or auditory signals, for example...but where is this so-called "unconscious"?

It seems to me that Jung (and all the psychiatrist schools of thought) use the "unconscious" the way some believers use "god"...to "explain" things that science has not yet discovered the real explanations for.

It's called the "god of the gaps"...and the more science explains, the weaker that "god" becomes.

But it's a silly and futile exercise; the simpler solution in light of the comparative track-records of science and superstition (including Jungian superstition) is to bet on a scientific explanation.

You may win or lose--science is often wrong. But if you bet on superstition, you always lose.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Pete]

I think it quite possible that the dying brain (oxygen-starvation?) would generate similar illusions...borrowed, of course, from the person's own culture. A dying Hindu or Buddhist wouldn't "see" Jesus and a dying Christian wouldn't "see" the Dalai Lama.

Redstar, he didn't say the SAME IMAGES, but SAME PATTERN. An example, as you have showed, is someone of spiritual significance to that person would be viewed before they die. The arguement is that these similar illusions do occur, and the tend to shift towards something wholly other is part of the collective unconsiousness. Of course their are other conclusions that could come from the same proof, such as we are all hardwired to have a similar view at death in our genes, or in some quirky universal unconsiousness (which Jung is saying).


Mythologies are an artistic expression. They are never meant to be true, that's why they are Myth's. They are meant to describe a certain situation, and relate a certain moral in a religious context

Wrong. The thing that makes a myth a myth and not history to intiates is that it holds a sacred truth. Governing morals and ethics may be present in the myth, but not necassarily. It is quite clear that Archaic and Classical Greeks believed in what their myths spoke of (expect, perhaps, that the gods lived on the top of Mt. Olympus), and for good reason. Although other factors where at work (such as the regular turnings of the natural world), they saw their sacrifices to bring about results. If they sacraficed before planting, and they had a good harvest, then the only thing they did was sacrafice, so hey look! That is why we had a good harvest! It must be that Dionysus or Demeter did this at one time! Great! Let's keep doing it! If they don't get a good harvest, it is because they fucked up somehow. Of course, as the people learned that it wasn't the sacrafice but the ground chemistry ect ect that gave them their crop, sacrafice fell out of use and now they worship science.

Myths definitilly where not created as an artistic expression, that is just the current bais, and it holds no historical significance.

[elijahcraig]

The human condition is fundamentally "similar among all peoples and in all ages", the material conditions of human life are "similar among all peoples, etc.", the search for explanation even when the tools of explanation (science) have not yet been invented is "similar among all peoples, etc.".

People invent mythologies when they have nothing else they can do...as soon as rational alternatives present themselves, mythology begins to fade.

I don’t think it is a case of “nothing else to do”.

Freud said it was because of repression and Marcuse agreed.

This may or may not be correct.


No, s/he applies her/his "creative forces" to the real world.

Ever read Campbell’s “Masks of God” series?

It gives a lot of information about the subject (myths) at hand.


So does human sacrifice, cannibalism, temple prostitution, witch-burning, and a host of other activities that civilized people no longer pursue.

I think your “Europeanized” outlook on things is utterly racist and should be abandoned.


rational thought

Such a thing does not exist.

Only Ayn Rand would claim so.

[Umoja]

[QUOTE]You don't demonstrate the existence of something simply by making a list of the things it is "supposed" to "explain".


Actually, that seems like a good way of making a hypothesis.


I'm quite sure there is an electro-chemical explanation for all the things that you listed...everything that's been discovered about the brain so far has taken the form of electro-chemical activity.

Art is a result of electro-chemical activity but it's still art. The way our brain functions, and what it has as an output aren't completely dependent on each other.


On the other hand, no evidence has emerged that the brain "contains" an "unconscious"...in fact, no one can even say what an "unconscious" might look like. We've identified the part of the brain that processes visual or auditory signals, for example...but where is this so-called "unconscious"?

The "subconscious" isn't a place, just like the "conscious" isn't a place. Nor the "Pysche" or the "Universal Subconscious". I don't know if most scientist would consider this unconscious, but do you generally think about blinking or breathing? But you can still control them if you wanted. If your walking some place, are you really thinking about it? The subconscious is not exactly a seperate mind, but it's functions that exist below your pysche. Some people say that animals would act completely unconsciously then.


But it's a silly and futile exercise; the simpler solution in light of the comparative track-records of science and superstition (including Jungian superstition) is to bet on a scientific explanation.

All psychology is "superstition" then because Freud would be equally at fault with his view of the mind. The human mind doesn't appear, at the moment, to operate like many other things in nature and seems to follow more of a chaotic system of operation.

[redstar2000]

You know, elijah, I just finished reading your thread on having your restriction lifted, and I just spent a few days at your site while Che-Lives was down and read some of your posts there, and I was just starting to think that well, maybe, you have grown up a little, and maybe I should write something in Commie Club about lifting your restriction...

and then I read this...


I think your “Europeanized” outlook on things is utterly racist and should be abandoned.

If a person of color on this board suggested that I was guilty of unintentional racism, I'd certainly have to re-examine my position. But that's never happened.

When you grow up white in the United States (especially in one of states of the old Confederacy), there's absolutely no doubt that racism "is in the air you breath"...and it would be a very foolish white person who declared that they were "untouched" by racist ideology. It's something we have to struggle against all our lives.

This, of course, has nothing to do with your statement. Apparently, you think that science is "European" and superstition is "non-European" and therefore we should embrace superstition in order to "prove" that we are not "Europeanized" "racists".


Such a thing [rational thought] does not exist.

I can see why you would say that.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

If a person of color on this board suggested that I was guilty of unintentional racism, I'd certainly have to re-examine my position. But that's never happened.

A person being “of color” really has nothing to do with this RS, it is a case of looking at a culture as “inferior” while yours superior.


When you grow up white in the United States (especially in one of states of the old Confederacy), there's absolutely no doubt that racism "is in the air you breath"...and it would be a very foolish white person who declared that they were "untouched" by racist ideology. It's something we have to struggle against all our lives.

This, of course, has nothing to do with your statement. Apparently, you think that science is "European" and superstition is "non-European" and therefore we should embrace superstition in order to "prove" that we are not "Europeanized" "racists".

I understand what you mean now. I thought you were playing the “inferior” card; which I detest.

[Umoja]

And my favorite topic has gone off tangent.

[redstar2000]

The way our brain functions, and what it has as an output aren't completely dependent on each other.

I don't understand this sentence.


...do you generally think about blinking or breathing?

No, I let the brain-stem take care of all that automatic stuff, as does everyone.

But what does that have to do with thinking?


All psychology is "superstition" then because Freud would be equally at fault with his view of the mind.

I don't know about "all" psychology...but certainly guys like Jung and Freud have nothing to offer, in my view, but a kind of pseudo-scientific superstition. There's really nothing in the way of evidence to support their assertions...and their disciples have had nearly a century to come up with something.

So, frankly, it looks like a dead end to me.


The human mind doesn't appear, at the moment, to operate like many other things in nature and seems to follow more of a chaotic system of operation.

Actually, there are "chaotic" elements in nature and there's even a "chaos theory" to investigate the kinds of "order" that seem to emerge from chaos.

I think it quite sufficient at this point to admit that we still don't know exactly how what we think of as our conscious mind emerges from the electro-chemical changes in the brain that we have begun to observe. There's a lot of research still to be done.

All the more reason not to be distracted by superstition pretending to be "science".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Pete]

Science is, after all, the modern supersition.

I just wonder what it will be replaced with in the future.

[redstar2000]

Science is, after all, the modern supersition.

Post-modernist nonsense.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Pete]

That makes a classless society, what, post capitalist nonsense?

[elijahcraig]

Science superstition? Much more likely a myth to replace the old myths. This time based on something a little more tangible.