@Xxblythe I agree with @GoldenAgeAscension on Memories, Dreams, Reflections, but Man and His Symbols is also an excellent choice. It was written specifically with the average reader in mind.
@mllhartshorn Then, after familiarising yourself, begin Liber Novus. Read it, then revisit it again, and again, and again as you mature. It is truely a work of art.
Such a brilliant man. I want to read some of his books... but I am not so familiar with psychology terms and all those in-depth concepts just yet. I think I'd rather ease into it. Can anyone recommend me a good starter book written by Jung?
This interviewer fucking sucks. You have an hour with Carl Jung, you should be trying to make contact with that man's vision of the universe, to find out how that man lived. You don't ask gossipy questions about the Freud-Jung letters. Embarrassing.
I still think that very few of the questions asked in this interview actually make any difference (my opinion) and I think Jung could probably agree too. This seems like a big time-waster. If I had an hour with Jung, I'd be discussing far more interesting subjects.
dont follow any guru take things into consideration and make your own conclusion we are not our history we are more than that the creator that created us wich is of way higher concioussnes than ours and has been around way longer than us is probly infinitly way more intelligent its in every tree plant piece of dust in your own braincell probly in the supposed beings that created man with higher councioucsnes its good the solar system is probly the most precise clock than any thin to keep time
jung was the god father supposedly of psychiatry he made the terms introvert extrovet and a lot of other things so all those modern day hack job phsyciatist who probly go and see there own psychiatrist cause there crazy, are the ones diagnosing you when really the idea that they convince you of that your this and that then your cured arises in your own mind , i think you should be able to figure things out your self since i all comes about in your mind anyway or just take c12 h17 n2 o4 p psilocy
@Darrell861 He means magic mushrooms. "The eye perceiveth not itself." Though Jung interpreted other's dreams, he did it with the view of making their unconscious contents conscious. He also taught his patients to self-examine and interpret their own dreams. Many of them went on to become famed psychiatrists in their own right. Even though there is a drive for individuation, there are huge psychic impediments towards realization, and often another is needed to see what you refuse to see.
@formerKGBchief One might as well conclude which of the three types one is according to Dr. Phil. Or the four presented by James Redfield. The list goes on. Who is your favorite guru? If it's Jung, fine. It's a free country. Psych Types is a bunch of nonsense.
how such a dumb disrespectful prick got the opportunity to interview (or rather interrogate considering the way he did that) one of the most important figures of 20th century? And how patient and tolerant must have been Jung during this
@Savatagger Jung did not edit MAHS. Freeman did. Just read Freeman's intro, p.v. Von Franz did the final editing. As for Jung, he was one of the most prominant megalomaniacs, liars and charlatans of the previous century. Much as he disgusts me, I find his literature hilarious. So many ways of putting his foot in his mouth. His followers, too. Check out p.42 of MAHS. Jung says he does not have the ability to interpret dreams. Huh? he spent his entire career claiming that he did. What a scam.
@Darrell861 Oops. Make that p. vi for Freeman's editing, and p. viii for von Franz's editing. The funniest thing Jung ever said was, "I am not a Jungian." That's like Christ saying, " All that Sermon on the Mount stuff? You don't think I go along with any of that nonesense, do you? What do you think I am. A Christian?"
@Darrell861 Suppose a child is raped and killed. The parents are devout Christians, and cannot understand how a loving god could allow such evil. Jung’s explanation goes like this: God was not conscious of what he was doing because he was projecting his shadow upon humanity. (Deirdre Bair, Jung: A Biography, p. 546) In other words, God is a person that Jung can psychoanalyse.Evil in the world is God's fault because God is not aware of his shadow.
@Savatagger The person you call a prick, John Freeman, was a devout follower of Jung. He was primarily responsible for the publication of Man And His Symbols, the book that Jung is most known for, even though Jung didn't write it. It was written by his followers. It was Freeman who edited the book. Jung liked Freeman because he represented the man on the street, the ordinary man, the non-specialist, etc. He was chosen as the patsy to set up the pompous elitism which is Jungian psychology.
Jung mentions having studied the philosophy of Kant...is that what you meant? Jung said that was what made him different from Freud's style--"while I was doubting all the time...I had studied Kant. "Freud when he said something that was IT. Jung had studied the history of Philosophy vs. Freud, who had no philosophical background.
mitohistoriador wins one-sided contest with superior display of erudition, equanimity and signs of coherency in thought process and is only one to display a resistance to jibberish.
I appreciate your comment serpentineflame, I can see even from your mere name, which resounds archetypal depths, that you do not merely blink at Nietzche's question "what is love? what is creation? what is longing? What is a dancing star?". But as you can see, unfortunately, all behaviorists can tell us is that Nietzsche's "linguistic behavior" is "singular" and is not an exception to the "laws of science"-that is to say, behaviorism blinketh without saying anything, without RESPONDING to N's ??
On the same token, behaviorism doesn't prove a thing either, except what is already built into apriori assumptions. If you are happy in a world where you are no better than rats--then be my guest. This is the brave new world you are looking forward to, fine. No matter what machines are used, the human soul will always react against such dehumanization through creative acts people like you will never understand, like Nietzsche's last man:
"what is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?--so asketh the last man and blinketh.
The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth the last man who maketh everything small. His species is ineradicable like that of the groundd flee; the last man liveth longenst." Thus Spake Zarathustra.
Long live skinner then, who hath made the psychology of and for the last man.
B.F. Skinner defined writing as a verbal behavior & it's controlled & understood so long as one chooses the operant as the term to be studied as opposed to the sentence.
Do you think that Nietzsche's verbal behavior is a singularity in the universe or an exception to the scientific explanation?
If you feel small so be it, but God is more interested in man then whole created universe so don't contemplate suicide just yet. God hath a desire for the work of his hands: Psalms 51:17 & John 3:16
I believe in soul, I said, "I'm a radical behaviorist Christian." I think you're right, man will react to dehumanizing things like Verichip & behavior of others towards "no flesh."
How are you disproving me scientifically? You aren't, but thanks for your thoughts.
As an aside, our reaction to such stimulus will not differ from Revelations path & man will continue in behavior towards "no flesh" until Zechariah 12:10 so man isn't the answer to dehumanization.
I understand what your implications are but it is obvious to me that you are comfortable to interpret phenomenon within the narrow scope of your acquired doctrines. It basically comes down to seeing the forest for the trees. That is what reductionist like you, Skinner, Dawkins, etc fail to understand.
Blind allegiance towards organized religion holds absolutely no bearing in my regard. Many Christians display that exact sterile paradigm. In fact, I personally find the practice of spouting denomination affiliation and arbitrary scripture very trite, and it only further reinforces my opinion that you can't see beyond doctrines.
What did he do for psychology? Where should I begin? The collective unconscious? The anima & animus? Psychology studies the psyche, which is a broad concept .
@hurtzwolf Jung invented the collective unconscious. Much of it can easily be explained away as examples of hypermnesic experiences. Jung invented the anima, animus, introversion, extraversion, archetypes and the Shadow. Jung has equated the Shadow with Original Sin, an invention of St. Paul. If one is not a Christian, there is no Original Sin. If one is not a Jungian, there is no Shadow. Jung had a fertile imagination, and fooled a lot of people.
Actually he didnt "invent" the collective unconscious (nor the anima, animus, etc.) He observed the phenomenon from examining blatant reoccurances throughout history, and geography. It's actually a concept that is widely accepted in the east. For you to say that hypermnesic experiences somehow refutes the collective unconcious is laughable and very telling of how little you know and comprehend of Jung and his work. Spouting absurd claims with no evidence makes a person look very ignorant.
@hurtzwolf Man And His Symbols p.59-60: The Bible has its own website on the collective uconscious internet. An 8-year-old girl who has never seen a bible can have a dream about images described in Corinthians. So can a potato farmer in Lithuania in 1350 A.D. All the girl has to do is take a glance at a bible while at her neighbor's house and then have an image pop up in one of her dreams. This case study is not documented and so stands as a bold-faced lie on Jung's part.
@hurtzwolf Jungian psychology is based on inductive logic. Jung invents a concept and then selectively looks for examples to support his concept. If the diary of the 8-year-old girl exists, it would be to Jung's theory of the collective unconscious as the Diary of Anne Frank is to survivors of the Holocaust. I have looked for documentation of the "unabridged German version" and cannot find it anywhere. Kekule's discovery of the structure of the benzene molecule is also explained as hypermnesic.
@Darrell861 Just how did you come to this conclusion of Jung involving inductive logic? If anything your arguments are based on inductive logic. You invent an accusation then you selectively look for examples to support it. The collective unconcious, for example, is observed in various indigenous tribes around the world who are isolated from the rest of the world yet have great similarity in practices and characteristics with each other and demonstrate typical archetypes.
@hurtzwolf I want to draw attention again to pp. 59-60 of Man and his Symbols. It concerns the supposed diary of an 8-year-old girl. I must correct what I said earlier. The girl did not dream of images described in Corinthians. Rather, Jung interpreted her dreams by referring to concepts in the Bible. Bottom line: The dreams are evidence for the collective unconscious internet. The girl had never been exposed to the Bible, yet had dreams caused by said internet. This diary does not exist.
@Darrell861 Only a tiny minority of people keep dream diaries. Lots of people don't even remember their dreams. Of that minority, a tinier minority is 8-year-old girls. Possible? Yes. Probable? No. This girl just happens to be the daughter of a psychiatrist who just happens to be friends with Jung even though he lives "abroad." That means in a foreign country. Which means a country where a foreign language is spoken. Turns out she and her family speak German, the language of Switzerland.
@Darrell861 The girl keeps the diary secret from her father and then gives him the diary two years later as a present. Possible? Yes. Probable? No. The father then travels from a foreign country expressly to show the diary to Jung. Does Jung respond? No. Does Jung tell the father that his daughter might be on the verge of a prematurely fatal illness? No. Jung breaks the Hippocratic Oath. He didn't have time to talk to the girl because she died a year later. Nonesense. Jung had a full year.
@Darrell861 I find it absolutely ridiculous that you are so adamant that Jung should have responded somehow to this. What is so dire that would warrant Jung to respond? Prematurely fatal illness? Based on a dream involving biblical imagery? He most certainly didn't break the Hippocratic Oath.
@hurtzwolf Jung has come under lotsa criticism for his theory of the collective unconscious. That criticism is what is so dire about a response from Jung. He based a diagnosis of a prematurely fatal illness on dream interpretation. That is not only an ethical violation, but also a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. Let me explain: If a l doctor is convinced that someone is in need of immediate medical attention and does nothing, he violates the Hippocratic Oath. Dig, Hurtzwolf?
@Darrell861 What's your point? Most great minds have come under scrutiny for challenging the status quo. He's also receive just as much praise from people who grasp the depth of his findings and those he's profoundly helped with it. You'll have to explain to me the correlation you're drawing between this little girls dream and said diagnosis of the prematurely fatal illness. I'm not very familiar with the particular case and I don't have that book as a reference.
@hurtzwolf You don't have a copy of Man And His Symbols? What kind of Jungian are you? On p. 42 Jung says, " I have come to realize that I do not have enough understanding of another person to be able to interpret their dreams." Right, Mr. Jung, you don't. But 17 pages later, on pp.59-60 he claims that hed does. That is a contradiction and an inconsistency.
@hurtzwolf "They made up the weirdest series of dreams that I had ever seen, and I could well understand why her father was more than just puzzled by them. Though childlike, they were uncanny, and they contained images whose origin was wholly incomprehensible to the father. Here are the relevant motifs from the dreams:" This where Jung begins his account of the diary.
@hurtzwolf By the way, I have transcribed the entire book onto my hard drive. Took me almost a year. I can send you the entire text, complete with my annotations instantaneously if you like. But oops, this is an anonymous format.
@hurtzwolf Jung has proof of the existence of the collective unconscious right in front of him, but does he tell the father? No. Does Jung immediately get the diary documented? No. Does Jung give the name of the father? No. Jung's theory of the collective unconscious has come under lots of criticism. Yet here he is, practically on his death bed, and he does not redeem himself. He would rather test people's gullibility by seeing how outrageous a lie he can tell without being challenged.
@Darrell861 ===="Jung has proof of the existence of the collective unconscious right in front of him, but does he tell the father? No. Does Jung immediately get the diary documented?" ====
Perhaps what you can't understand is that Carl Gustav Jung wasn't nearly as concerned with wasting energy justifying what he intrinsically knew, and has consistently shown to be true, to hard boiled cynics as he was with using WHAT he knew to help an ailing populous. Some would find that quite admirable!
@hurtzwolf Any writer who feels no need to justify or document anything he says is a megalomaniac. This is what makes Jung the Dr. Phil of his time. Jung regarded himself as a demi-god who was above criticism, and his followers fell in like ducks behind him. I like to call those ducks "circle-jerkers." Oh, and, to just which ailing populous do you refer? 15th-century Lithuanian potato farmers? Or everyone female, male, all cultures, everyone who has ever lived or is now alive today?
@Darrell861 You are refering to ONE incident which he chose ,for whatever reason, not to document. Your moronic hyperbole kills any credibility you think you might have had. Nor has he ever regarded himself as a "demi-god", and he welcomed criticism and independent thought. Its also funny you speak of "circle-jerkers" because ironically its self satifying cynical tools who try to slander a man who's contributed more to mankind than they could dream who are the real circle-jerkers.
@hurtzwolf I am not referring to just one incident. There is also Jung's 1916 essay titled "The Transcendent Function," which also contains a lie about dream interpretation. Also, a 1903 dissertaion in which he lied about his cousin Helly.
@Darrell861 whoa whoa whoa.. hold up there cheif. Just because your twisted little mind deduces he lied about a dream interpretation and about his cousin doesn't magically make it so. Who's the megalomaniac hypocrite now? How about providing some evidence for these claims?
@hurtzwolf The only way I can provide evidence of what I'm saying is by e-mailing you my essays. I can't document them in the short space (500 characters) in this chat room format which is anonymous. But I'm curious. Which and how many of Jung's books have you read, including those by his followers? When did you first start reading Jung?
@Darrell861 Why would you spout off all these bold face claims as fact if you aren't prepared to back them up with proof? For someone who is so adamant on documenting, you dont seem to practice what you preach. i've read memories, dreams, and reflections, Jung on nature, technology and the modern life, modern man in search of a soul, how to read jung.. I started about 6 years ago or so.. what's your point?
@hurtzwolf My point is that Jung claimed to have the ability to interpret other people's dreams. In the context of being a licensed psychiatrist, that claim is unethical. If it's your neighbor Marge who makes the claim, fine. No Problem. No one ever taught Jung how to interpret dreams. Capice? That's my point.
@hurtzwolf The plot thickens with the 2008 publication "Children's Dreams" (Princeton University Press, 2008.) It is a summary of a seminar conducted by Jung from 1936 to 1940. If the diary exists anywhere, it ought to be documented in this book. The first dream on the list from the diary is analyzed on p.367. Oddly, the paper was presented by Jolande Jacobi, But the text is missing. Jung takes over. There is no mention made of the diary; only the one dream is examined. The girl is 10, not 8.
@hurtzwolf No mention is made of the "Once Upon A Time" theme. The father is not described as being a fellow psychiatrist. Rather, he is "very active politically." The meeting between the two is not mentioned. The daughter is described as being alive, and 10 when she kept the diary. No mention is made of the Christmas present. The overwhelming theme is Jung trying to pass off the collective unconscious as a given fact. This is not the same version of the story Jung tells in 1961.
@hurtzwolf Mr. Hurtzwolf, you wanted me to "bring something new to the table." Well, there it is. Jung tells a story that defies belivability, contains multiple inconsistencies, and is not documented at all. Once again, if this diary exists, it would be to Jung's theory of the collective unconscious as the Diary Of Anne Frank is to survivors of the Holocaust. Jung is lying. I haven't even started yet. Lots more where this came from.
@Darrell861 definies BELIEVABILITY? NOPE! contains multiple inconsistencies? I don't see them! not documented? Irrelevant but Probably for good reason anways! Lots more where this came from hey? You must be tapped to quite the sewage system! Hold on. let me buckles in! *rolls eyes*
@hurtzwolf Jung's tall tale about the 8-year- old girl defies believability ( most people do not keep dream diaries) has inconsistencies (first she was 10 when she kept the diary, then she was eight; diary not mentioned in 1940, but is mentioned in 1961), and is not documented even though documentation would have been a simple matter. Lots more where this came from. The sewage system is everything I have read since 1978 by Jung and his followers. Uh, make that "circle jerkers."
@hurtzwolf Oh, and, one more thing. I did not invent the accusation and then use inductive logic. From the outset this case study smelled fishy to me. I tried tto track down the diary. The first place I looked was Understanding Dreams by Mary Ann Mattoon, Ph.D. It wasn't there. On the advice of Karen Gibson, Ph.D, a local Jungian analyst, I purchased Children's Dreams. It wasn't there. I then deduced that the diary does not exist. If you think you can track it down, good luck.
@Darrell861 Say I was to humor you and grant that argument, which at this point's based solely on REACHING speculation and conjecture at best, it STILL wouldn't touch his lifes work and philosophy. However, where you believe its such a stretch for a young girl to keep a diary involving her dreams, which in those given times, was actually common (and her father being a shrink making it MORE probable). The fact that you try to spin such a legitimate thing into something anomalous speaks volumes.
@hurtzwolf It has never been common in any time in history for people to keep dream diaries. It has never been a fad or the pastime du jour. Only a very tiny minority of people in the world keep a dream diary. You seem to be saying (correct me if I am wrong) that her father, being a psychiatrist, in some sense caused the girl to keep a diary, thereby making it a common event. If so, that means the father encouraged her to keep a dream diary. Yet she kept it secret. Huh?
@Darrell861 You really think it's that rare for someone to keep a diary that happens to document their dreams? Especially in a time before technologies such as computers, email, television, etc? Really? You amuse me deeply :) Yes, i am saying that her father being a psychiatrist, as opposed to you thinking it would somehow lessen the chances, could possibly have had an influence on her doing such a thing, yet she'd wish to keep it a secret just the same. Is that a challenge for you to grasp?
@hurtzwolf Yep, it's beyond rare. And yep, not only do I not grasp it, I do not believe it. Speaking of technologies, it's easier for someone nowadays to record their dreams. As for the sewage you mention, that sewage is everything I have read since 1978 by Jung and his followers ("circle-jerkers")
@Darrell861 Once again, Jung had absolutely no obligation to document everything he planned on later recounting just because you think he should have.
@hurtzwolf In 1961 Jung was practically on his deathbed. He did have an obligation to his readers to document his claims. But wait, I'm sorry. You don't even have a copy of Man And His Symbols.
@Darrell861 No i don't have a copy on hand, and the fact that you see that as some kind of cheap dig at me once again speaks volumes of your character.
@hurtzwolf My character? MY CHARACTER? Huh? I am a self-proclaimed narcisstic jerk who takes pride in rubbing people the wrong way. But my knowledge of Jungian psychology is prolific. I know my subject material. Screw my character.
@Darrell861 Your knowledge on Jung on a base level may or may not be extensive but its also very selective as to adhere to your closed mind and bias. It's obvious to me that your comprehension of his work is nill.
@hurtzwolf My comprehension? MY COMPREHENSION? I comprehend that Jung claimed to have the ability to interpret other people's dreams. No one. NO ONE has the ability to interpret other people's dreams. Where did he learn that ability? By taking a course in community college?
@Darrell861 I am reading two of his books, and he always says that its ultimately up to the dreamer to interpret their dream, but also had countless decades of hearing peoples dreams along with their interpretations. He is very insiteful in understanding the unconsious mind, which when unbalanced with the conscious mind, due to something like a deep repression, and can lead to unconscious actions which the person woudn't understand. dreams help communicate with the unconsious.
@monkeyjoe9 "At that time [1907] I analyzed at least 4000 dreams a year." --CW3, par. 557. Expressed as a rate, that comes out to 11 dreams a day, 7 days a week for 730 consecutive days. Jung is lying. "Analyze" is a transitive verb. It's what one does to data. One does not analyze one's own DNA. Other people do. Even if those 11 dreams a day occurred, Jung did all the analyzing. Give me one example of a case study where Jung allowed a person to interpret his own dream.
@Darrell861 Lol. PSYCHOLOGIZING THE PSYCHOLOGISTS. But it's fair enough. Jung would say that you can't reduce your argument to its psychic makeup and think you've defeated it. You're allowed to criticize Jung, you're just not allowed to do it in a fallacious polemical ad hominem way. I would be fascinated to read your essays, if you'd give me the immense pleasure of doing so. orangeiceice12@gmail.com I'll give you your logical due without recourse to diagnosing your character.Awaiting your reply
@isolateslowfaults I am not psychologizing Jung. I am criticicizing Jung's conduct as a licensed professional. No one has the ability to interpret the dreams of others. And certainly not within the context of being a licensed professional.
@Darrell861 One can interpret the dreams of others! Now, that interpretation must be based on the consciouss life of the person being analised! Jung said that the end-result of the analysing depends solely on the subject and not on the analyst! If the subject feels that the analyst has it a mark than the interpretation is valid! Interpretation is not 100% truth even when it hits the mark, many things will remain in darkness, but if it brings a CURE in the subject than there's no harm done!
@brav0wing Jung repeatedly interpreted dreams without any discussion with the dreamer. P. 134-36 of Memories, Dreams Reflections, and p.59-60 of Man And His Symbols. No one taught Jung how to interpret dreams. Yet in CW3par.557 he said, "At that time [1907] I analyzed at least 4000 dreams a year." That comes out to 11 dreams a day 7 days a week for 730 consecutive days. It is logistically impossible just to meet 11 new people a day, much less get to know them.
@Darrell861 Well it is not quite true! An average person dreams 4 different dreams per night plus another 2 (or more) per day (that if he sleeps during day time), that's 4 or 8 dreams per one person! Plus, why say 4000 and not 2000 to make it more believable?
He based his interpretation of dreams on the studies of mythology, alchemy and religion! His interpretation is based on the recurrence of the archytypes! A snake for example is a mythological, religious and alchemychal symbol.
@brav0wing Dream interpretation is based on the faulty premise that all dreams have a meaning. Jungians cannot tolerate the idea of a dream which has no meaning. Jung made dreams mean what he wanted them to mean. One might as well say that one's niece can interpret dreams. One cannot quantify what constitutes sufficient knowledge of the other person. It's one thing if your neighbor Marge calims to interpret dreams. It's another when one is a licensed professional make the same claim.
@Darrell861 Symbols are also of collective origin thus universal! To give one example! Two years ago I went through a terrible sentimental ordeal with sleepless nights, panic attacks, depression! About around that time I dreamt I was bitten by lots of snakes! I didn't pay much attention to it! Anyway my panaceea was Freud and later Jung's writings! Imagine my surprise to find an alchemycal painting depicting people who let themselves to be bitten by snakes to cure themselves!
@brav0wing “But in divination by dreams, each of us is in himself his proper instrument; whatever we may do, we cannot separate ourselves from our oracle: it dwells with us; it follows us everywhere, in our journeys, in war, in public life, agricultural pursuits, in commercial enterprises. The laws of a jealous Republic do not interdict that divination; if they did, they could do nothing: because how can the offense be proven? What harm is there in sleeping?
@Darrell861 To give you another example! Still in my depression I dreamt Winston Churchill coming to my old school! Everybody rose up in reverence and than the dream changed and I was playing chess with the him! I thought I was winning but I was not! I mistaken my king for a queen thus I put my king in a bad position and lost! At which Churchill said! I knew of your mistake but I let you play anyway! Two weeks later a read the chapter where Churchill appears often as a symbol of the self!
@brav0wing No tyrant is able to carry out an edict against dreams, still less proscribe sleep in his dominions; that would be at once fully to command the impossible, and an impiety to put himself in opposition to the desires of nature and God.” Synesius of Cyrene, [Circa A.D. 400], The New World of Dreams.
@Darrell861 The chapter with Churchill was in the book Man and His Symbols! Now you can argue that I give the meaning that I want to help me feel better about myself! One could say that! But if that helped me get over my depression than where is the harm?
@brav0wing From what I understand, you made it through a rough period by making your own decisions. I admire that. I myself am no stranger to panic attacks and depression. But I find Man And His Symbols to be the silliest book I have read. And dream interpretation has no place in psychiatry. It is unethical, and I am opposed to Jung's ideas.
@Darrell861 Man and His Symbols is a book for the layman. Jung didn't want to do it but was convinced in the end! The point I was trying to make is that dreams that come from the collective unconscious are based on themes that have occured through the millenia thus if one studies comparative religion, mythology, one can find in the dreams of himself and others reccuring themes! This gives the basis of an accurate interpretation! The end result as I have said depends solely on the subject!
@brav0wing The book is a book fo the layman, and I find that term patronizing. But the is whay John Freeman was chosen as the editor. Jung did not edit the book. It was finally edited by von Franz after Jung's death in 1961. Jung had practically nothing to do with the publishing of that book. Once again, good to talk to someone who has also been through the panic attack depression thing. Thanks for sharing.
@Darrell861 When Jung studied the symbolism and the works of the alchemists he said that at that time the consciousness of that period was not as it is today thus the alchemists projected the contents of their unconsious upon their work and themes like lapis philosophorum, putrefactio are actually in the psyche of every man, much like the memes of Dawkins are present in consciousness but with a difference!
@brav0wing Once again, I do not agree with any of Jung's writing. More than that, his followers cannot agree on essential issues. Like just what constitutes dream interpretation. Jung was a megalomaniac.
@brav0wing Synesius' point is do not let anyone else interpret your dreams. If you interpreted your own dreams, great. But no one taught Jung how to interpret dreams. For that matter, no one ever taught anyone how to interpret dreams. It is the oldest hoax in the world.It has no place in the practice of psychiatry. Once again, if you interpreted your own dreams, great. That is the way dream interpretation should be done. I have also been through the panic attacks. Thanks for sharing.-Darrell
@Darrell861 ..and im only gonna say once more that he IS NOT entitled to have documentation on everything he recounts. There are various reasons he could have chosen not to document that particular case. No obligation to you or his readers!
@Darrell861 you really expect to hold any credibility with comments like that? He documents the majority of what he has recounted. If something is relevant to a given topic, i'm not going to omit it because i don't have documentation on it.
@hurtzwolf What you call Jung's documentation is once again based on selective inductive logic. If it doesn't fit Jung's format, it is rejected. Case in point: In Man and his Symbols there is no mention made of Islam, which makes up what, one third of the world's poplulation? Just check in the index at the back of the book. Islam bans idolotry and, for the most part, symbolism. Thus, nothing for Jung to get his grubby mitts on.
@Darrell861 Symbols transend all religions, and religion symbols come from the depths of the human mind. There are thousand of religions, but what they all have in common is the personified characters, which are just reflections of the human psyche. Symbology goes all the way back to egypt, and even modern science had been largly influenced by alchemy, which involves lots of symbology. Newton study alchemy and egypt more than he did science and mathematics. Even einstien was influenced by jung.
@Darrell861 Hmm.. perhaps your time would be better served constructing a legitimate argument rather than hunting down a little girls diary?!? Has it occured to you that the diary wasn't published out of a basic respect for the little girls privacy? Jung had these crazy things called ethics and morals so it wouldn't be much of a stretch.
=="If you think you can track it down, good luck." ==
If it's all the same I'll leave such petty endeavours to you :)
@hurtzwolf I have already constructed a legitimate argument to the effect that the diary never existed. As for docuenting the existence of the diary, all Jung had to do was ask the father, "Do I have your and your daughter's permission to publish the diary?" Simple. But Jung did nothing. As for ethics, Jung spent his entire career basing his private practice on dream interpretation. That's like basing one's private practice on the daily horoscope in a newspaper. That is unethical.
Its funny how you try to negate all this with no basis. Are you saying that anyone who coins a term for any phenomenon is wrong? The shadow in its simplest form is based around the idea of balance. If you deny or repress one aspect of yourself it will eventually manifest in another way. From my life experience and dealings with people I know without a doubt that his concepts and insights hold great validity. There's also the fact that you brought nothing to the table to prove your point.
@hurtzwolf You want me to bring something to the table? Okay. Introversion and extraversion are based on theory. Theories are not discovered. They are invented. Jung wrote in Psychological Types that he does not hold his to be the only possible type theory. This leaves the door open for Dr. Phil. to invent his own type-theory, as well as James Redfield, Baghwan Shree Rajneesh, Neal Donald Walsh, Marie Louise-von Franz, etc. Want me to bring something to the table? I haven't even started yet.
I should say you haven't started! Arbitrary name dropping and reiterating your flawed logic does not equate to bringing something to the table in my esteem. Also, by your loose definition what is not "invented"? You act as if there is some objective and concrete absolution outside of this. We observe phenomenon and give it an appropriate title. Introversion and extraversion have made their way into our regular discourse amongst the most standard terminology. There's a good reason for that!
@hurtzwolf If you are saying that the shadow is based on balance, then you are headed into the realm of thermodynamics, which is based on science and as such has no relevance to the human psyche. One of Jung's favorite terms is "compensation," which implies thermodynamics, thereby creating the illusion that Jung's theories are scientific. Once again, Jung fooled a lot of people.
So you're saying science has some kind of freehold on basic terminology? Really? Sounds like blatant fundamentalism to me. Balance is a very broad concept and has as much place in explaining the psyche as it does in thermodynamics. You have an obvious tendency towards reductionism and hold everything to your limited scope. Jung touched on many things that modern science could not and has shed great insight on the psyche which has only gotten more and more relevant as we evolve.
Neurology studies the material brain, psych studies the mind-BOTH are part of man. I'm sure there's a connection between brain/mind that can be quantified empirically; but I also feel the mind is incorporeal. The S.Method could never even begin to touch it. (Read The Spiritual Brain by Dr. M Beauregard & similar works). Btw ABA, if you are a behaviorist AND a believer, then answer this: What/where is the soul? Can it be quantified? Is it part of the mind? brain? Is there a God 'gene'? :0)
I think you'll find the post synap and presynaps in the brain follow the theory of operant conditioning (Behavioral strengthening) and classical conditioning (stimulus pairing).
That is if you read actual studies that look at the actual biology of the structures.
Who says Jonah could hate the Ninevites through his free will while preaching for them to repent thanks to God sending a big stimulus package in the form of a big fish to swallow him whole?
Jonah followed the will of God, but cursed the Ninevites for repenting even though he told them to.
God has a desire for the work of His hands regardless of how annoying we can be.
No man cometh to the father but by me (Jesus' words) sorry your interpretation is not supported, but it is a great lie.
Welcome your death it is coming like unto Psalm 49:20. You are not a God. Science says you are an animal just like Psalms 49:20.
Jesus said, John 10:10b. I don't think you give me a more abundant life, but I do think your lie makes for a wonderful feeling in your bones when you really believe it, but the truth is you know it is a stupid lie.
God is consciousness. That is broad in definition.
Are you saying a tree is not alive? You are supposedly related to a tree, but trees are not proven to be conscious so they are not a part of God. Neither is the single celled organisms that again you supposedly came from so they are not God either.
But you are a God or part of him due to a conscious thinking mind. Whatever.
Again you have nor can prove anything about your theory, but keep theorizing as you purposely misquote the BIble.
Or are you so stupid as to not even know you were quoting me quoting you?
You are so broad as to be unable to define yourself as you are God's fingernail while the cat is God's eyes and the dog is God's mind in your philosophy.
Smudge6699 if we are all sons of God then don't feel sorry for me.
If you are god and a son of God then go serve yourself, oh, servant of god.
Look over your deeds and then contemplate Psalms 51:17 and then wonder if you are purposely misinterpreting scripture. Then wonder about your deeds. The end of the Bible talks about those who pervert it.
I'm sure the Bible condemns you. It condemns most people I do believe.
If you have a question then ask it in a straight forward manner.
If we leave the arena of didactic thought and head towards the unquestioning belief of blind faith then surely in the realm of the unprovable any thing is possible?
I have no allegiance nor distaste with the word or teachings of Christ, therefore I am free to think outside the box of orthodox Christianity.
Run with it, smudge6699. Here is a cool quote, "All things work together for good."
Just don't pick up a Bible and see it in context.
Here is something else for you. I heard that Buddha's tooth floated over battles that had his followers win the war. Run with it as it might be useful.
Now pick up Zechariah 12:10 and ask me if there is power in such words.
God knows what is going to happen thousands of years before it happens.
They will mourn for their brother who they have pierced due to what they did to him and what subsequently happened to them for what they did.
You know things like the holocaust in the 1940s and like when muslims slaughtered 4,000 Jews in one day in Granada, Spain while crucifying the Jewish vizier of that city.
Such things could have been avoided if they had accepted Jesus.
Because Luke 12:5 is explained by Matthew 10:28 or the loss of an eternal body & your soul is an eternal punishment.
There is no resurrection from Matthew 10:28, but you will be resurrected to receive Matthew 10:28 & when you're in that body you won't want to lose it; that is a given.
The finality of the judgement is so certain that forever is the smoke of the burning. It consumes till there is nothing of an individual left. Fire consumes till the second eternal body & soul is fully destroyed.
Are you okay with the fact all people who have lived are going to die & this includes you? Have you not figured this out yet? When do you plan to believe in Psalms 49:20? Death comes to us all & most figure it out once they are over ten years old unless they are mentally unable.
The children & mentally unable are righteous & do not need a savior. How about you? Take a look at Psalms 51:17 & let me know your evalutation of yourself when you aren't lying?
You have avoided my question twice now. You will rst in eternal bliss while your friends are extinguished in the fires of agony and anguish? Am I wrong in saying this?
I do not believe in the Bible. I have come to the conclusion through my understanding of the world and all religions as well as personal experiences that there is a God that exists out of unconditional love and acceptance for everyone.
You prefer one who creates, judges, and discards at will.
But we will have to agree to disagree as I do not believe in Christianity or the Bible as God's one all-powerful religion.
I also do not believe in a God that is petty as man. I do not believe in a God who creates, judges, and then destroys because we will not convert to an organized faith, especially one that cannot love everybody for who they are (homosexuals).
Nice try Frogstomp121, but God desires sacrifice unto Psalms 51:17 as opposed to a religion. Thus, if you sacrifice what you have to offer then Jesus sacrifices what He offered without you even knowing Him.
The South American from 100 B.C. and from 100 A.D. is saved if he reaches Psalms 51:17 and any Jew or Christian from history is saved if they reach Psalms 51:17.
There was a scapegoat in the sacrifice. Always was in the Jewish system along with Jesus on the cross, but the sacrifice without a scapegoat had a scapegoat too.
This scapegoat was the man as he left the sacrifice and walked away despite being a sinner and thus the reason for the sacrifice.
Mind you all sacrifice was pointing to the promise by God of Jesus, but then few know God.
People must be reminded that Jung was a phenomenologist so that his hermeneutic science is entirely based on experience and factuality. The problem is the narrow concept of "proof" which assumes that unless something can be measured it doesn't exist. ABAisScience is exactly in the same position the Kangaroo in HORTON HEARS WHO who says that unless you can see and touch something "it doesn't exist". But this is the most crass form of scientism one can find-even in the cartoon world!
@Xxblythe I agree with @GoldenAgeAscension on Memories, Dreams, Reflections, but Man and His Symbols is also an excellent choice. It was written specifically with the average reader in mind.
mllhartshorn 3 months ago
@mllhartshorn Then, after familiarising yourself, begin Liber Novus. Read it, then revisit it again, and again, and again as you mature. It is truely a work of art.
BetweenParallels 2 weeks ago
ps thanks for posting though
meaghanartz 5 months ago
I wouldnt consider this a new age video .. theres a distinction between psychological healing exploration and new age waffle ....
meaghanartz 5 months ago
@WrathMania
agree indeed, i feel sorry for him
dyparkk 5 months ago
Such a brilliant man. I want to read some of his books... but I am not so familiar with psychology terms and all those in-depth concepts just yet. I think I'd rather ease into it. Can anyone recommend me a good starter book written by Jung?
xXblythe 5 months ago
@xXblythe yes,
I recommend you his autobiography and memories. The best way to start reading Jung.
GoldenAgeAscension 5 months ago 3
@GoldenAgeAscension K, thanks so much
xXblythe 5 months ago
New age idiots...its just a fucking placebo....
TheDJSTALKER 5 months ago
This interviewer fucking sucks. You have an hour with Carl Jung, you should be trying to make contact with that man's vision of the universe, to find out how that man lived. You don't ask gossipy questions about the Freud-Jung letters. Embarrassing.
WrathMania 5 months ago 6
I still think that very few of the questions asked in this interview actually make any difference (my opinion) and I think Jung could probably agree too. This seems like a big time-waster. If I had an hour with Jung, I'd be discussing far more interesting subjects.
freedomfromthemind 6 months ago 9
Brilliant ... thoughtful, honest, very interesting man
maple1255 11 months ago
Comment removed
techno2161 1 year ago
Die ass, D I E
KRIZMIX 1 year ago
Ranks up there with Milton Friedman.
MastersOfInfinity 1 year ago
A really Great Soul
TheEkaterik 1 year ago
His stammering @ 0:15 is indicative of his frustration at such an asinine question.
Guitarslinger72001 1 year ago
dont follow any guru take things into consideration and make your own conclusion we are not our history we are more than that the creator that created us wich is of way higher concioussnes than ours and has been around way longer than us is probly infinitly way more intelligent its in every tree plant piece of dust in your own braincell probly in the supposed beings that created man with higher councioucsnes its good the solar system is probly the most precise clock than any thin to keep time
monkeyjoe9 1 year ago
@monkeyjoe9 Huh? I sent you two of my essays. I am awaiting your reply.
Darrell861 1 year ago
jung was the god father supposedly of psychiatry he made the terms introvert extrovet and a lot of other things so all those modern day hack job phsyciatist who probly go and see there own psychiatrist cause there crazy, are the ones diagnosing you when really the idea that they convince you of that your this and that then your cured arises in your own mind , i think you should be able to figure things out your self since i all comes about in your mind anyway or just take c12 h17 n2 o4 p psilocy
monkeyjoe9 1 year ago
@monkeyjoe9 Huh? Could you please enlighten me as to just what you mean by c12 h17 n2 o4 psillocy? I am anti- Jung. Are you pro-Jung?
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 He means magic mushrooms. "The eye perceiveth not itself." Though Jung interpreted other's dreams, he did it with the view of making their unconscious contents conscious. He also taught his patients to self-examine and interpret their own dreams. Many of them went on to become famed psychiatrists in their own right. Even though there is a drive for individuation, there are huge psychic impediments towards realization, and often another is needed to see what you refuse to see.
isolateslowfaults 1 year ago
"Have you concluded what psychological type you are yourself?"... wow, he'd really thought about that one... brilliant upload tho' thanks a million
formerKGBchief 1 year ago
@formerKGBchief One might as well conclude which of the three types one is according to Dr. Phil. Or the four presented by James Redfield. The list goes on. Who is your favorite guru? If it's Jung, fine. It's a free country. Psych Types is a bunch of nonsense.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@formerKGBchief Are you pro-Jung, or anti-Jung? I am anti-megalomaniac, of which Jung is one.
Darrell861 1 year ago
"We are not of today, or of yesterday, we are of an immense ago." at 3:50 - what a fabulous transpersonal understanding.
This interview must have been about 50 years ago, yes?
kstreletzk 1 year ago 7
@kstreletzk
Yes.. He is the frist of a generation of scientist's who'll join the spirit and develop the other abilities of the human beings..
Geko2006 1 year ago
To find those letters at 01:39 would be like finding another copy of The Declaration of Independence
mach1man22 2 years ago
how such a dumb disrespectful prick got the opportunity to interview (or rather interrogate considering the way he did that) one of the most important figures of 20th century? And how patient and tolerant must have been Jung during this
Savatagger 2 years ago 11
@Savatagger Jung did not edit MAHS. Freeman did. Just read Freeman's intro, p.v. Von Franz did the final editing. As for Jung, he was one of the most prominant megalomaniacs, liars and charlatans of the previous century. Much as he disgusts me, I find his literature hilarious. So many ways of putting his foot in his mouth. His followers, too. Check out p.42 of MAHS. Jung says he does not have the ability to interpret dreams. Huh? he spent his entire career claiming that he did. What a scam.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 Oops. Make that p. vi for Freeman's editing, and p. viii for von Franz's editing. The funniest thing Jung ever said was, "I am not a Jungian." That's like Christ saying, " All that Sermon on the Mount stuff? You don't think I go along with any of that nonesense, do you? What do you think I am. A Christian?"
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 Suppose a child is raped and killed. The parents are devout Christians, and cannot understand how a loving god could allow such evil. Jung’s explanation goes like this: God was not conscious of what he was doing because he was projecting his shadow upon humanity. (Deirdre Bair, Jung: A Biography, p. 546) In other words, God is a person that Jung can psychoanalyse.Evil in the world is God's fault because God is not aware of his shadow.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Savatagger The person you call a prick, John Freeman, was a devout follower of Jung. He was primarily responsible for the publication of Man And His Symbols, the book that Jung is most known for, even though Jung didn't write it. It was written by his followers. It was Freeman who edited the book. Jung liked Freeman because he represented the man on the street, the ordinary man, the non-specialist, etc. He was chosen as the patsy to set up the pompous elitism which is Jungian psychology.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Savatagger lol calm down.. The same thing still happens now..
see 'bill maher interviews david icke' lol
AbattoirDream 1 year ago
@Savatagger
you sound like the disrespectful prick to me
cp1492 8 months ago
did anyone understand the full name of the historian he quotes? and what type of religious literature does this historian studied?
mtbezzi 2 years ago
Jung mentions having studied the philosophy of Kant...is that what you meant? Jung said that was what made him different from Freud's style--"while I was doubting all the time...I had studied Kant. "Freud when he said something that was IT. Jung had studied the history of Philosophy vs. Freud, who had no philosophical background.
laughlight1 2 years ago
thanks for the reply, but i meant the german historian he quotes at 6:20.
mtbezzi 2 years ago
Albrecht Dieterich
serpentineflame 2 years ago
Thanks for sharing.
TonyBtheEG 2 years ago
"I'm not my own history..." great insight. The only insight needed to become free. Thank you for these vids!
0NonZens0 2 years ago 6
Thank God for the Holy Spirit.
Otherwise I would have to trust my human misunderstanding of the Bible to tell me what it means.
OKandNOWwhat 2 years ago
Thank God for The Bible.
Otherwise I would have to think for myself!
JacobsJaffa 2 years ago 20
@JacobsJaffa "He who does not understand the Bible cannot understand psychology." - Carl Jung
isolateslowfaults 1 year ago
Alguem pode legenfar esse vídeo, é muito importante para os estudiosos junguiano, grata
yesterapy1 2 years ago
tu nao acha melhor os "estudiosos" aprenderem english? Just a thought...
jatigre1 2 years ago 2
2:54 he uses the word "amorphous"
TheAmorphousCreature 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheAmorphousCreature 2 years ago
Jung did not "prove" a single thing, but everything he said is true; Skinner proved everything, but everything he proved is not true.
mitohistoriador 3 years ago 4
mitohistoriador wins one-sided contest with superior display of erudition, equanimity and signs of coherency in thought process and is only one to display a resistance to jibberish.
serpentineflame 3 years ago
I appreciate your comment serpentineflame, I can see even from your mere name, which resounds archetypal depths, that you do not merely blink at Nietzche's question "what is love? what is creation? what is longing? What is a dancing star?". But as you can see, unfortunately, all behaviorists can tell us is that Nietzsche's "linguistic behavior" is "singular" and is not an exception to the "laws of science"-that is to say, behaviorism blinketh without saying anything, without RESPONDING to N's ??
mitohistoriador 3 years ago
On the same token, behaviorism doesn't prove a thing either, except what is already built into apriori assumptions. If you are happy in a world where you are no better than rats--then be my guest. This is the brave new world you are looking forward to, fine. No matter what machines are used, the human soul will always react against such dehumanization through creative acts people like you will never understand, like Nietzsche's last man:
mitohistoriador 3 years ago
"what is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?--so asketh the last man and blinketh.
The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth the last man who maketh everything small. His species is ineradicable like that of the groundd flee; the last man liveth longenst." Thus Spake Zarathustra.
Long live skinner then, who hath made the psychology of and for the last man.
mitohistoriador 3 years ago
B.F. Skinner defined writing as a verbal behavior & it's controlled & understood so long as one chooses the operant as the term to be studied as opposed to the sentence.
Do you think that Nietzsche's verbal behavior is a singularity in the universe or an exception to the scientific explanation?
If you feel small so be it, but God is more interested in man then whole created universe so don't contemplate suicide just yet. God hath a desire for the work of his hands: Psalms 51:17 & John 3:16
ABAisSCIENCE 3 years ago
You're not understanding me at all.
I believe in soul, I said, "I'm a radical behaviorist Christian." I think you're right, man will react to dehumanizing things like Verichip & behavior of others towards "no flesh."
How are you disproving me scientifically? You aren't, but thanks for your thoughts.
As an aside, our reaction to such stimulus will not differ from Revelations path & man will continue in behavior towards "no flesh" until Zechariah 12:10 so man isn't the answer to dehumanization.
ABAisSCIENCE 3 years ago
I understand what your implications are but it is obvious to me that you are comfortable to interpret phenomenon within the narrow scope of your acquired doctrines. It basically comes down to seeing the forest for the trees. That is what reductionist like you, Skinner, Dawkins, etc fail to understand.
hurtzwolf 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Look I'm a Christian, so I can see things from beyond the perspective of psychology, but psychology studies man.
What did Jung do for psychology that is shown to be true? The answer is nothing.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
Blind allegiance towards organized religion holds absolutely no bearing in my regard. Many Christians display that exact sterile paradigm. In fact, I personally find the practice of spouting denomination affiliation and arbitrary scripture very trite, and it only further reinforces my opinion that you can't see beyond doctrines.
What did he do for psychology? Where should I begin? The collective unconscious? The anima & animus? Psychology studies the psyche, which is a broad concept .
hurtzwolf 2 years ago 6
@hurtzwolf Jung invented the collective unconscious. Much of it can easily be explained away as examples of hypermnesic experiences. Jung invented the anima, animus, introversion, extraversion, archetypes and the Shadow. Jung has equated the Shadow with Original Sin, an invention of St. Paul. If one is not a Christian, there is no Original Sin. If one is not a Jungian, there is no Shadow. Jung had a fertile imagination, and fooled a lot of people.
Darrell861 1 year ago
Actually he didnt "invent" the collective unconscious (nor the anima, animus, etc.) He observed the phenomenon from examining blatant reoccurances throughout history, and geography. It's actually a concept that is widely accepted in the east. For you to say that hypermnesic experiences somehow refutes the collective unconcious is laughable and very telling of how little you know and comprehend of Jung and his work. Spouting absurd claims with no evidence makes a person look very ignorant.
hurtzwolf 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf Man And His Symbols p.59-60: The Bible has its own website on the collective uconscious internet. An 8-year-old girl who has never seen a bible can have a dream about images described in Corinthians. So can a potato farmer in Lithuania in 1350 A.D. All the girl has to do is take a glance at a bible while at her neighbor's house and then have an image pop up in one of her dreams. This case study is not documented and so stands as a bold-faced lie on Jung's part.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf Jungian psychology is based on inductive logic. Jung invents a concept and then selectively looks for examples to support his concept. If the diary of the 8-year-old girl exists, it would be to Jung's theory of the collective unconscious as the Diary of Anne Frank is to survivors of the Holocaust. I have looked for documentation of the "unabridged German version" and cannot find it anywhere. Kekule's discovery of the structure of the benzene molecule is also explained as hypermnesic.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 Just how did you come to this conclusion of Jung involving inductive logic? If anything your arguments are based on inductive logic. You invent an accusation then you selectively look for examples to support it. The collective unconcious, for example, is observed in various indigenous tribes around the world who are isolated from the rest of the world yet have great similarity in practices and characteristics with each other and demonstrate typical archetypes.
hurtzwolf 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf I want to draw attention again to pp. 59-60 of Man and his Symbols. It concerns the supposed diary of an 8-year-old girl. I must correct what I said earlier. The girl did not dream of images described in Corinthians. Rather, Jung interpreted her dreams by referring to concepts in the Bible. Bottom line: The dreams are evidence for the collective unconscious internet. The girl had never been exposed to the Bible, yet had dreams caused by said internet. This diary does not exist.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 Only a tiny minority of people keep dream diaries. Lots of people don't even remember their dreams. Of that minority, a tinier minority is 8-year-old girls. Possible? Yes. Probable? No. This girl just happens to be the daughter of a psychiatrist who just happens to be friends with Jung even though he lives "abroad." That means in a foreign country. Which means a country where a foreign language is spoken. Turns out she and her family speak German, the language of Switzerland.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 The girl keeps the diary secret from her father and then gives him the diary two years later as a present. Possible? Yes. Probable? No. The father then travels from a foreign country expressly to show the diary to Jung. Does Jung respond? No. Does Jung tell the father that his daughter might be on the verge of a prematurely fatal illness? No. Jung breaks the Hippocratic Oath. He didn't have time to talk to the girl because she died a year later. Nonesense. Jung had a full year.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 I find it absolutely ridiculous that you are so adamant that Jung should have responded somehow to this. What is so dire that would warrant Jung to respond? Prematurely fatal illness? Based on a dream involving biblical imagery? He most certainly didn't break the Hippocratic Oath.
hurtzwolf 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf Jung has come under lotsa criticism for his theory of the collective unconscious. That criticism is what is so dire about a response from Jung. He based a diagnosis of a prematurely fatal illness on dream interpretation. That is not only an ethical violation, but also a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. Let me explain: If a l doctor is convinced that someone is in need of immediate medical attention and does nothing, he violates the Hippocratic Oath. Dig, Hurtzwolf?
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 What's your point? Most great minds have come under scrutiny for challenging the status quo. He's also receive just as much praise from people who grasp the depth of his findings and those he's profoundly helped with it. You'll have to explain to me the correlation you're drawing between this little girls dream and said diagnosis of the prematurely fatal illness. I'm not very familiar with the particular case and I don't have that book as a reference.
hurtzwolf 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf You don't have a copy of Man And His Symbols? What kind of Jungian are you? On p. 42 Jung says, " I have come to realize that I do not have enough understanding of another person to be able to interpret their dreams." Right, Mr. Jung, you don't. But 17 pages later, on pp.59-60 he claims that hed does. That is a contradiction and an inconsistency.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 I can only assume the quote on p. 42 is accurate, and please give the direct quote on pp.59-60 that contradicts this...
hurtzwolf 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf "They made up the weirdest series of dreams that I had ever seen, and I could well understand why her father was more than just puzzled by them. Though childlike, they were uncanny, and they contained images whose origin was wholly incomprehensible to the father. Here are the relevant motifs from the dreams:" This where Jung begins his account of the diary.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf By the way, I have transcribed the entire book onto my hard drive. Took me almost a year. I can send you the entire text, complete with my annotations instantaneously if you like. But oops, this is an anonymous format.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf Jung has proof of the existence of the collective unconscious right in front of him, but does he tell the father? No. Does Jung immediately get the diary documented? No. Does Jung give the name of the father? No. Jung's theory of the collective unconscious has come under lots of criticism. Yet here he is, practically on his death bed, and he does not redeem himself. He would rather test people's gullibility by seeing how outrageous a lie he can tell without being challenged.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 ===="Jung has proof of the existence of the collective unconscious right in front of him, but does he tell the father? No. Does Jung immediately get the diary documented?" ====
Perhaps what you can't understand is that Carl Gustav Jung wasn't nearly as concerned with wasting energy justifying what he intrinsically knew, and has consistently shown to be true, to hard boiled cynics as he was with using WHAT he knew to help an ailing populous. Some would find that quite admirable!
hurtzwolf 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf Any writer who feels no need to justify or document anything he says is a megalomaniac. This is what makes Jung the Dr. Phil of his time. Jung regarded himself as a demi-god who was above criticism, and his followers fell in like ducks behind him. I like to call those ducks "circle-jerkers." Oh, and, to just which ailing populous do you refer? 15th-century Lithuanian potato farmers? Or everyone female, male, all cultures, everyone who has ever lived or is now alive today?
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 You are refering to ONE incident which he chose ,for whatever reason, not to document. Your moronic hyperbole kills any credibility you think you might have had. Nor has he ever regarded himself as a "demi-god", and he welcomed criticism and independent thought. Its also funny you speak of "circle-jerkers" because ironically its self satifying cynical tools who try to slander a man who's contributed more to mankind than they could dream who are the real circle-jerkers.
hurtzwolf 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf I am not referring to just one incident. There is also Jung's 1916 essay titled "The Transcendent Function," which also contains a lie about dream interpretation. Also, a 1903 dissertaion in which he lied about his cousin Helly.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 whoa whoa whoa.. hold up there cheif. Just because your twisted little mind deduces he lied about a dream interpretation and about his cousin doesn't magically make it so. Who's the megalomaniac hypocrite now? How about providing some evidence for these claims?
hurtzwolf 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf The only way I can provide evidence of what I'm saying is by e-mailing you my essays. I can't document them in the short space (500 characters) in this chat room format which is anonymous. But I'm curious. Which and how many of Jung's books have you read, including those by his followers? When did you first start reading Jung?
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 Why would you spout off all these bold face claims as fact if you aren't prepared to back them up with proof? For someone who is so adamant on documenting, you dont seem to practice what you preach. i've read memories, dreams, and reflections, Jung on nature, technology and the modern life, modern man in search of a soul, how to read jung.. I started about 6 years ago or so.. what's your point?
hurtzwolf 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf My point is that Jung claimed to have the ability to interpret other people's dreams. In the context of being a licensed psychiatrist, that claim is unethical. If it's your neighbor Marge who makes the claim, fine. No Problem. No one ever taught Jung how to interpret dreams. Capice? That's my point.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf The plot thickens with the 2008 publication "Children's Dreams" (Princeton University Press, 2008.) It is a summary of a seminar conducted by Jung from 1936 to 1940. If the diary exists anywhere, it ought to be documented in this book. The first dream on the list from the diary is analyzed on p.367. Oddly, the paper was presented by Jolande Jacobi, But the text is missing. Jung takes over. There is no mention made of the diary; only the one dream is examined. The girl is 10, not 8.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf No mention is made of the "Once Upon A Time" theme. The father is not described as being a fellow psychiatrist. Rather, he is "very active politically." The meeting between the two is not mentioned. The daughter is described as being alive, and 10 when she kept the diary. No mention is made of the Christmas present. The overwhelming theme is Jung trying to pass off the collective unconscious as a given fact. This is not the same version of the story Jung tells in 1961.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf Mr. Hurtzwolf, you wanted me to "bring something new to the table." Well, there it is. Jung tells a story that defies belivability, contains multiple inconsistencies, and is not documented at all. Once again, if this diary exists, it would be to Jung's theory of the collective unconscious as the Diary Of Anne Frank is to survivors of the Holocaust. Jung is lying. I haven't even started yet. Lots more where this came from.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 definies BELIEVABILITY? NOPE! contains multiple inconsistencies? I don't see them! not documented? Irrelevant but Probably for good reason anways! Lots more where this came from hey? You must be tapped to quite the sewage system! Hold on. let me buckles in! *rolls eyes*
hurtzwolf 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf Jung's tall tale about the 8-year- old girl defies believability ( most people do not keep dream diaries) has inconsistencies (first she was 10 when she kept the diary, then she was eight; diary not mentioned in 1940, but is mentioned in 1961), and is not documented even though documentation would have been a simple matter. Lots more where this came from. The sewage system is everything I have read since 1978 by Jung and his followers. Uh, make that "circle jerkers."
Darrell861 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf Oh, and, one more thing. I did not invent the accusation and then use inductive logic. From the outset this case study smelled fishy to me. I tried tto track down the diary. The first place I looked was Understanding Dreams by Mary Ann Mattoon, Ph.D. It wasn't there. On the advice of Karen Gibson, Ph.D, a local Jungian analyst, I purchased Children's Dreams. It wasn't there. I then deduced that the diary does not exist. If you think you can track it down, good luck.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 Say I was to humor you and grant that argument, which at this point's based solely on REACHING speculation and conjecture at best, it STILL wouldn't touch his lifes work and philosophy. However, where you believe its such a stretch for a young girl to keep a diary involving her dreams, which in those given times, was actually common (and her father being a shrink making it MORE probable). The fact that you try to spin such a legitimate thing into something anomalous speaks volumes.
hurtzwolf 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf It has never been common in any time in history for people to keep dream diaries. It has never been a fad or the pastime du jour. Only a very tiny minority of people in the world keep a dream diary. You seem to be saying (correct me if I am wrong) that her father, being a psychiatrist, in some sense caused the girl to keep a diary, thereby making it a common event. If so, that means the father encouraged her to keep a dream diary. Yet she kept it secret. Huh?
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 You really think it's that rare for someone to keep a diary that happens to document their dreams? Especially in a time before technologies such as computers, email, television, etc? Really? You amuse me deeply :) Yes, i am saying that her father being a psychiatrist, as opposed to you thinking it would somehow lessen the chances, could possibly have had an influence on her doing such a thing, yet she'd wish to keep it a secret just the same. Is that a challenge for you to grasp?
hurtzwolf 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf Yep, it's beyond rare. And yep, not only do I not grasp it, I do not believe it. Speaking of technologies, it's easier for someone nowadays to record their dreams. As for the sewage you mention, that sewage is everything I have read since 1978 by Jung and his followers ("circle-jerkers")
Darrell861 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf It's not a matter or a dreamer documenting their dreams in a diary. It' a matter of Jung documenting the diary. Two different things.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 Once again, Jung had absolutely no obligation to document everything he planned on later recounting just because you think he should have.
hurtzwolf 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf In 1961 Jung was practically on his deathbed. He did have an obligation to his readers to document his claims. But wait, I'm sorry. You don't even have a copy of Man And His Symbols.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 No i don't have a copy on hand, and the fact that you see that as some kind of cheap dig at me once again speaks volumes of your character.
hurtzwolf 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf My character? MY CHARACTER? Huh? I am a self-proclaimed narcisstic jerk who takes pride in rubbing people the wrong way. But my knowledge of Jungian psychology is prolific. I know my subject material. Screw my character.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 Your knowledge on Jung on a base level may or may not be extensive but its also very selective as to adhere to your closed mind and bias. It's obvious to me that your comprehension of his work is nill.
hurtzwolf 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf My comprehension? MY COMPREHENSION? I comprehend that Jung claimed to have the ability to interpret other people's dreams. No one. NO ONE has the ability to interpret other people's dreams. Where did he learn that ability? By taking a course in community college?
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 I am reading two of his books, and he always says that its ultimately up to the dreamer to interpret their dream, but also had countless decades of hearing peoples dreams along with their interpretations. He is very insiteful in understanding the unconsious mind, which when unbalanced with the conscious mind, due to something like a deep repression, and can lead to unconscious actions which the person woudn't understand. dreams help communicate with the unconsious.
monkeyjoe9 1 year ago
@monkeyjoe9 "At that time [1907] I analyzed at least 4000 dreams a year." --CW3, par. 557. Expressed as a rate, that comes out to 11 dreams a day, 7 days a week for 730 consecutive days. Jung is lying. "Analyze" is a transitive verb. It's what one does to data. One does not analyze one's own DNA. Other people do. Even if those 11 dreams a day occurred, Jung did all the analyzing. Give me one example of a case study where Jung allowed a person to interpret his own dream.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 Lol. PSYCHOLOGIZING THE PSYCHOLOGISTS. But it's fair enough. Jung would say that you can't reduce your argument to its psychic makeup and think you've defeated it. You're allowed to criticize Jung, you're just not allowed to do it in a fallacious polemical ad hominem way. I would be fascinated to read your essays, if you'd give me the immense pleasure of doing so. orangeiceice12@gmail.com I'll give you your logical due without recourse to diagnosing your character.Awaiting your reply
isolateslowfaults 1 year ago
@isolateslowfaults I am not psychologizing Jung. I am criticicizing Jung's conduct as a licensed professional. No one has the ability to interpret the dreams of others. And certainly not within the context of being a licensed professional.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 One can interpret the dreams of others! Now, that interpretation must be based on the consciouss life of the person being analised! Jung said that the end-result of the analysing depends solely on the subject and not on the analyst! If the subject feels that the analyst has it a mark than the interpretation is valid! Interpretation is not 100% truth even when it hits the mark, many things will remain in darkness, but if it brings a CURE in the subject than there's no harm done!
brav0wing 1 year ago
@brav0wing Jung repeatedly interpreted dreams without any discussion with the dreamer. P. 134-36 of Memories, Dreams Reflections, and p.59-60 of Man And His Symbols. No one taught Jung how to interpret dreams. Yet in CW3par.557 he said, "At that time [1907] I analyzed at least 4000 dreams a year." That comes out to 11 dreams a day 7 days a week for 730 consecutive days. It is logistically impossible just to meet 11 new people a day, much less get to know them.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 Well it is not quite true! An average person dreams 4 different dreams per night plus another 2 (or more) per day (that if he sleeps during day time), that's 4 or 8 dreams per one person! Plus, why say 4000 and not 2000 to make it more believable?
He based his interpretation of dreams on the studies of mythology, alchemy and religion! His interpretation is based on the recurrence of the archytypes! A snake for example is a mythological, religious and alchemychal symbol.
brav0wing 1 year ago
@brav0wing Dream interpretation is based on the faulty premise that all dreams have a meaning. Jungians cannot tolerate the idea of a dream which has no meaning. Jung made dreams mean what he wanted them to mean. One might as well say that one's niece can interpret dreams. One cannot quantify what constitutes sufficient knowledge of the other person. It's one thing if your neighbor Marge calims to interpret dreams. It's another when one is a licensed professional make the same claim.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 Symbols are also of collective origin thus universal! To give one example! Two years ago I went through a terrible sentimental ordeal with sleepless nights, panic attacks, depression! About around that time I dreamt I was bitten by lots of snakes! I didn't pay much attention to it! Anyway my panaceea was Freud and later Jung's writings! Imagine my surprise to find an alchemycal painting depicting people who let themselves to be bitten by snakes to cure themselves!
brav0wing 1 year ago
@brav0wing “But in divination by dreams, each of us is in himself his proper instrument; whatever we may do, we cannot separate ourselves from our oracle: it dwells with us; it follows us everywhere, in our journeys, in war, in public life, agricultural pursuits, in commercial enterprises. The laws of a jealous Republic do not interdict that divination; if they did, they could do nothing: because how can the offense be proven? What harm is there in sleeping?
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 To give you another example! Still in my depression I dreamt Winston Churchill coming to my old school! Everybody rose up in reverence and than the dream changed and I was playing chess with the him! I thought I was winning but I was not! I mistaken my king for a queen thus I put my king in a bad position and lost! At which Churchill said! I knew of your mistake but I let you play anyway! Two weeks later a read the chapter where Churchill appears often as a symbol of the self!
brav0wing 1 year ago
@brav0wing No tyrant is able to carry out an edict against dreams, still less proscribe sleep in his dominions; that would be at once fully to command the impossible, and an impiety to put himself in opposition to the desires of nature and God.” Synesius of Cyrene, [Circa A.D. 400], The New World of Dreams.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 The chapter with Churchill was in the book Man and His Symbols! Now you can argue that I give the meaning that I want to help me feel better about myself! One could say that! But if that helped me get over my depression than where is the harm?
brav0wing 1 year ago
@brav0wing From what I understand, you made it through a rough period by making your own decisions. I admire that. I myself am no stranger to panic attacks and depression. But I find Man And His Symbols to be the silliest book I have read. And dream interpretation has no place in psychiatry. It is unethical, and I am opposed to Jung's ideas.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 Man and His Symbols is a book for the layman. Jung didn't want to do it but was convinced in the end! The point I was trying to make is that dreams that come from the collective unconscious are based on themes that have occured through the millenia thus if one studies comparative religion, mythology, one can find in the dreams of himself and others reccuring themes! This gives the basis of an accurate interpretation! The end result as I have said depends solely on the subject!
brav0wing 1 year ago
@brav0wing The book is a book fo the layman, and I find that term patronizing. But the is whay John Freeman was chosen as the editor. Jung did not edit the book. It was finally edited by von Franz after Jung's death in 1961. Jung had practically nothing to do with the publishing of that book. Once again, good to talk to someone who has also been through the panic attack depression thing. Thanks for sharing.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 I am a layman as well! But also a man who tries to find his way! Thanks for sharing as well! Good luck and all the best!
brav0wing 1 year ago
@brav0wing All my best to you as well.-Darrell
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 When Jung studied the symbolism and the works of the alchemists he said that at that time the consciousness of that period was not as it is today thus the alchemists projected the contents of their unconsious upon their work and themes like lapis philosophorum, putrefactio are actually in the psyche of every man, much like the memes of Dawkins are present in consciousness but with a difference!
brav0wing 1 year ago
@brav0wing Once again, I do not agree with any of Jung's writing. More than that, his followers cannot agree on essential issues. Like just what constitutes dream interpretation. Jung was a megalomaniac.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@brav0wing Synesius' point is do not let anyone else interpret your dreams. If you interpreted your own dreams, great. But no one taught Jung how to interpret dreams. For that matter, no one ever taught anyone how to interpret dreams. It is the oldest hoax in the world.It has no place in the practice of psychiatry. Once again, if you interpreted your own dreams, great. That is the way dream interpretation should be done. I have also been through the panic attacks. Thanks for sharing.-Darrell
Darrell861 1 year ago
@isolateslowfaults I sent you two of my essays. I am awaiting your reply.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 ..and im only gonna say once more that he IS NOT entitled to have documentation on everything he recounts. There are various reasons he could have chosen not to document that particular case. No obligation to you or his readers!
hurtzwolf 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf If Jung is not obligated to document what he is saying, then he is the great and powerful wizard of oz.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 you really expect to hold any credibility with comments like that? He documents the majority of what he has recounted. If something is relevant to a given topic, i'm not going to omit it because i don't have documentation on it.
hurtzwolf 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf What you call Jung's documentation is once again based on selective inductive logic. If it doesn't fit Jung's format, it is rejected. Case in point: In Man and his Symbols there is no mention made of Islam, which makes up what, one third of the world's poplulation? Just check in the index at the back of the book. Islam bans idolotry and, for the most part, symbolism. Thus, nothing for Jung to get his grubby mitts on.
Darrell861 1 year ago
@Darrell861 Symbols transend all religions, and religion symbols come from the depths of the human mind. There are thousand of religions, but what they all have in common is the personified characters, which are just reflections of the human psyche. Symbology goes all the way back to egypt, and even modern science had been largly influenced by alchemy, which involves lots of symbology. Newton study alchemy and egypt more than he did science and mathematics. Even einstien was influenced by jung.
monkeyjoe9 1 year ago
@Darrell861 Hmm.. perhaps your time would be better served constructing a legitimate argument rather than hunting down a little girls diary?!? Has it occured to you that the diary wasn't published out of a basic respect for the little girls privacy? Jung had these crazy things called ethics and morals so it wouldn't be much of a stretch.
=="If you think you can track it down, good luck." ==
If it's all the same I'll leave such petty endeavours to you :)
hurtzwolf 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf I have already constructed a legitimate argument to the effect that the diary never existed. As for docuenting the existence of the diary, all Jung had to do was ask the father, "Do I have your and your daughter's permission to publish the diary?" Simple. But Jung did nothing. As for ethics, Jung spent his entire career basing his private practice on dream interpretation. That's like basing one's private practice on the daily horoscope in a newspaper. That is unethical.
Darrell861 1 year ago
Its funny how you try to negate all this with no basis. Are you saying that anyone who coins a term for any phenomenon is wrong? The shadow in its simplest form is based around the idea of balance. If you deny or repress one aspect of yourself it will eventually manifest in another way. From my life experience and dealings with people I know without a doubt that his concepts and insights hold great validity. There's also the fact that you brought nothing to the table to prove your point.
hurtzwolf 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf You want me to bring something to the table? Okay. Introversion and extraversion are based on theory. Theories are not discovered. They are invented. Jung wrote in Psychological Types that he does not hold his to be the only possible type theory. This leaves the door open for Dr. Phil. to invent his own type-theory, as well as James Redfield, Baghwan Shree Rajneesh, Neal Donald Walsh, Marie Louise-von Franz, etc. Want me to bring something to the table? I haven't even started yet.
Darrell861 1 year ago
I should say you haven't started! Arbitrary name dropping and reiterating your flawed logic does not equate to bringing something to the table in my esteem. Also, by your loose definition what is not "invented"? You act as if there is some objective and concrete absolution outside of this. We observe phenomenon and give it an appropriate title. Introversion and extraversion have made their way into our regular discourse amongst the most standard terminology. There's a good reason for that!
hurtzwolf 1 year ago
@hurtzwolf If you are saying that the shadow is based on balance, then you are headed into the realm of thermodynamics, which is based on science and as such has no relevance to the human psyche. One of Jung's favorite terms is "compensation," which implies thermodynamics, thereby creating the illusion that Jung's theories are scientific. Once again, Jung fooled a lot of people.
Darrell861 1 year ago
So you're saying science has some kind of freehold on basic terminology? Really? Sounds like blatant fundamentalism to me. Balance is a very broad concept and has as much place in explaining the psyche as it does in thermodynamics. You have an obvious tendency towards reductionism and hold everything to your limited scope. Jung touched on many things that modern science could not and has shed great insight on the psyche which has only gotten more and more relevant as we evolve.
hurtzwolf 1 year ago
Neurology studies the material brain, psych studies the mind-BOTH are part of man. I'm sure there's a connection between brain/mind that can be quantified empirically; but I also feel the mind is incorporeal. The S.Method could never even begin to touch it. (Read The Spiritual Brain by Dr. M Beauregard & similar works). Btw ABA, if you are a behaviorist AND a believer, then answer this: What/where is the soul? Can it be quantified? Is it part of the mind? brain? Is there a God 'gene'? :0)
jazzinnature081 2 years ago
JazzInNature081,
I think you'll find the post synap and presynaps in the brain follow the theory of operant conditioning (Behavioral strengthening) and classical conditioning (stimulus pairing).
That is if you read actual studies that look at the actual biology of the structures.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
He became enlightened!
In the first of these videos he's asked if he still believes in God.
His reply is "Difficult to answer, I don't need to believe, I know"
SO DO I!
Think of Christ as a psychotherapist and your there.
All mystics bring knowledge of what we are underneath what the ego mind would have us believe we are.
I won't name call but it's your ignorance.
You can't be both independent and a follower at the same time, these states are mutually exclusive.
smudge6699 2 years ago
Who says Jonah could hate the Ninevites through his free will while preaching for them to repent thanks to God sending a big stimulus package in the form of a big fish to swallow him whole?
Jonah followed the will of God, but cursed the Ninevites for repenting even though he told them to.
God has a desire for the work of His hands regardless of how annoying we can be.
Later.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
We are all God.
Sorry your a Christian, we are all the sons of God.
God is consciousness, an energy that creates all. It, he, her; operates around us and through us.
The singularity that creates all opposites.
And the people cried "Lord! We have usurers in the temple! How shall we know the usurers in the temple?"
And the Lord said "Fear not! You shall know them by their deeds."
I am a servant of God.
Now!
smudge6699 2 years ago
No man cometh to the father but by me (Jesus' words) sorry your interpretation is not supported, but it is a great lie.
Welcome your death it is coming like unto Psalm 49:20. You are not a God. Science says you are an animal just like Psalms 49:20.
Jesus said, John 10:10b. I don't think you give me a more abundant life, but I do think your lie makes for a wonderful feeling in your bones when you really believe it, but the truth is you know it is a stupid lie.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
The truth is you've shared your interpretation of my statement as you see it.
Prove my model is a lie, I have 80GB of stuff that proves otherwise.
There are none so blind............
smudge6699 2 years ago
You have no proof that you are a God unless you are determined to show me that you deserve to be in a mental institution. You my friend are a human.
Nice try on lying smudge6699.
Continue on and show yourself and idiot.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
Try reading what's there rather than what you think is there.
WE are all God.
God is consciousness, it creates, haven't you noticed?
Consciousness is an energy that operates around and through everything.
smudge6699 2 years ago
God is consciousness. That is broad in definition.
Are you saying a tree is not alive? You are supposedly related to a tree, but trees are not proven to be conscious so they are not a part of God. Neither is the single celled organisms that again you supposedly came from so they are not God either.
But you are a God or part of him due to a conscious thinking mind. Whatever.
Again you have nor can prove anything about your theory, but keep theorizing as you purposely misquote the BIble.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
Quote:
"God is consciousness. That is broad in definition."
Please define consciousness so I can see why your perspective of it is as broad.
Many thanks.
smudge6699 2 years ago
You wrote it; so you define it.
Or are you so stupid as to not even know you were quoting me quoting you?
You are so broad as to be unable to define yourself as you are God's fingernail while the cat is God's eyes and the dog is God's mind in your philosophy.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
My definition was precise, explain why you see it as broad, the second part of the quote is your claim.
Name calling is puerile and the last resort of the ignorant.
Where are my biblical misquotations that you refer too?
smudge6699 2 years ago
Your wasting my time.
You can't prove God is your consciousness or a collective consciousness.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
You haven't answered my question.
Bye
smudge6699 2 years ago
Smudge6699 if we are all sons of God then don't feel sorry for me.
If you are god and a son of God then go serve yourself, oh, servant of god.
Look over your deeds and then contemplate Psalms 51:17 and then wonder if you are purposely misinterpreting scripture. Then wonder about your deeds. The end of the Bible talks about those who pervert it.
I'm sure the Bible condemns you. It condemns most people I do believe.
If you have a question then ask it in a straight forward manner.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
Then I'll ask again.
Which scriptures have I misinterpreted according to you?
Might I get an answer this time?
Also, where does the bible condemn me and why?
smudge6699 2 years ago
You miss quote the Bible when you call yourself a Son of God and all the sons of God..
"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
I'm not quoting the bible.
I don't see it as the sole source of anything.
It's my supposition.
If we leave the arena of didactic thought and head towards the unquestioning belief of blind faith then surely in the realm of the unprovable any thing is possible?
I have no allegiance nor distaste with the word or teachings of Christ, therefore I am free to think outside the box of orthodox Christianity.
Whatever that is.
smudge6699 2 years ago
Run with it, smudge6699. Here is a cool quote, "All things work together for good."
Just don't pick up a Bible and see it in context.
Here is something else for you. I heard that Buddha's tooth floated over battles that had his followers win the war. Run with it as it might be useful.
Now pick up Zechariah 12:10 and ask me if there is power in such words.
Later.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
Zechariah 12:10
Fine, read it, what does it mean to you?
smudge6699 2 years ago
A lot more than a floating tooth.
God knows what is going to happen thousands of years before it happens.
They will mourn for their brother who they have pierced due to what they did to him and what subsequently happened to them for what they did.
You know things like the holocaust in the 1940s and like when muslims slaughtered 4,000 Jews in one day in Granada, Spain while crucifying the Jewish vizier of that city.
Such things could have been avoided if they had accepted Jesus.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
How can you live comfortably in heaven while your family or friends (the ones who are non-believers) are burning in hell?
Frogstomp121 2 years ago
Because Luke 12:5 is explained by Matthew 10:28 or the loss of an eternal body & your soul is an eternal punishment.
There is no resurrection from Matthew 10:28, but you will be resurrected to receive Matthew 10:28 & when you're in that body you won't want to lose it; that is a given.
The finality of the judgement is so certain that forever is the smoke of the burning. It consumes till there is nothing of an individual left. Fire consumes till the second eternal body & soul is fully destroyed.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
Without quoting scriptures, do you even really care that your loved ones may just disappear? You are okay with this?
Frogstomp121 2 years ago
Are you okay with the fact all people who have lived are going to die & this includes you? Have you not figured this out yet? When do you plan to believe in Psalms 49:20? Death comes to us all & most figure it out once they are over ten years old unless they are mentally unable.
The children & mentally unable are righteous & do not need a savior. How about you? Take a look at Psalms 51:17 & let me know your evalutation of yourself when you aren't lying?
Choice is given in Romans 6:23
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
You have avoided my question twice now. You will rst in eternal bliss while your friends are extinguished in the fires of agony and anguish? Am I wrong in saying this?
I do not believe in the Bible. I have come to the conclusion through my understanding of the world and all religions as well as personal experiences that there is a God that exists out of unconditional love and acceptance for everyone.
You prefer one who creates, judges, and discards at will.
Frogstomp121 2 years ago
Some of my friends may receive hell fire meaning a destruction to non-existence.
To call God everything is to paint Him too big and to call God only love is to paint Him too small.
You err in the latter description. God meantions that Jacob He loved and Esau He hated. What you got to figure out is why He loves.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
But we will have to agree to disagree as I do not believe in Christianity or the Bible as God's one all-powerful religion.
I also do not believe in a God that is petty as man. I do not believe in a God who creates, judges, and then destroys because we will not convert to an organized faith, especially one that cannot love everybody for who they are (homosexuals).
Frogstomp121 2 years ago 3
Nice try Frogstomp121, but God desires sacrifice unto Psalms 51:17 as opposed to a religion. Thus, if you sacrifice what you have to offer then Jesus sacrifices what He offered without you even knowing Him.
The South American from 100 B.C. and from 100 A.D. is saved if he reaches Psalms 51:17 and any Jew or Christian from history is saved if they reach Psalms 51:17.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
Ah, a loophole in the system.
Frogstomp121 2 years ago 2
There was a scapegoat in the sacrifice. Always was in the Jewish system along with Jesus on the cross, but the sacrifice without a scapegoat had a scapegoat too.
This scapegoat was the man as he left the sacrifice and walked away despite being a sinner and thus the reason for the sacrifice.
Mind you all sacrifice was pointing to the promise by God of Jesus, but then few know God.
It's not a loop-hole; it's a relationship.
I get it though; we disagree.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
@ABAisSCIENCE Read jungs "answer to job"... why all the scripture quotes lol???
SilentKombat 1 year ago
People must be reminded that Jung was a phenomenologist so that his hermeneutic science is entirely based on experience and factuality. The problem is the narrow concept of "proof" which assumes that unless something can be measured it doesn't exist. ABAisScience is exactly in the same position the Kangaroo in HORTON HEARS WHO who says that unless you can see and touch something "it doesn't exist". But this is the most crass form of scientism one can find-even in the cartoon world!
mitohistoriador 3 years ago
Here you're saying Jung proved nothing. Good. Glad your hon