agnosticism

[Lunitik]

Proof Jung simply knows nothing at all

He is basically describing the unenlightened man, justifying fabrications because he fears truth.

 

[radarmark]

Ah, but Lunitik, he said it all so well (see the Red Book), just kidding!

 

[Servetus]

Agnosticism is the only way to actually know, once you know you can call it gnosticism perfectly well.

I am not interested in arguing semantics, but I do not accept the first half of your statement. Agnosticism, as I understand, is a claim, or proposition, that one does not or cannot know. It therefore impresses me as nonsense, or as at best paradoxical, to say that “agnosticism is the only way to actually know.”

It is very egotistical to say you know when you do not,

It is also dishonest.

and agnosticism simply means exactly that: I don't know.

I thought you just said that agnosticism is the only way to actually know.

I suggest you look into how many of Jung's "patients" committed suicide, it will make you think twice about accepting anything the man has to say. He is a complete moron, his whole approach is utterly stupid and proven harmful to those that go into it.

Thanks for the suggestion. I wasn’t holding him out as a guru. I was offering one of his statements as proof of a modern gnostic viewpoint. You may summarily dismiss him if you like, but his “Modern Man in Search of a Soul,” an insightful article on especially post-War European peoples, stands, to this day, upon its own considerable merits.

… I just don't think that signing up for Christianity blindly is going to help either... although, of course, Christ says such an ignorance is a blessing. Perhaps the worst line in any scripture on earth, but there it is. Christianity is actually the single most lazy line of thinking …

The latter part of your statement seems harsh. I don’t know your reference. Could you please cite the specific scripture? I don’t recall Jesus ever having encouraged ignorance. On the contrary, he spoke of truth setting people free and faced martyrdom in the process.

It is exactly because of what I just said... except now the knowledge is borrowed, you think you are done looking but nothing at all has become available to you in reality. You have merely memorized a book, you have not experienced anything of the real.

I asked you to produce the “worst line in any scripture,” the one in which Jesus supposedly encouraged ignorance, and I am still waiting for you to do that.

 

[Lunitik]

Ah, but Lunitik, he said it all so well (see the Red Book), just kidding!

Is that the one where he justifies his concubine as saying a man needs two types of woman to be satisfied - the caring wife and the whore, basically? Makes me chuckle just thinking about it because he is just trying to justify why he has cheated. It is mind analyzing mind, how can it ever arrive at something unbiased?

The guy is a joke.

 

[Etu Malku]

Proof Jung simply knows nothing at all

He is basically describing the unenlightened man, justifying fabrications because he fears truth.

How on earth did you conclude that from this video?

it seems to me what Jung was getting at was the Collective Unconsciousness and our ability (or inability) to grab onto it and make sense of our ancient Self, towards Individuation.

 

[Etu Malku]

I suggest you look into how many of Jung's "patients" committed suicide, it will make you think twice about accepting anything the man has to say. He is a complete moron, his whole approach is utterly stupid and proven harmful to those that go into it.

Do post a link to this slander and absurdity, I've never heard any of this before.

 

[Lunitik]

I am not interested in arguing semantics, but I do not accept the first half of your statement. Agnosticism, as I understand, is a claim, or proposition, that one does not or cannot know. It therefore impresses me as nonsense, or as at best paradoxical, to say that “agnosticism is the only way to actually know.”

You have began the semantic dispute, now you are saying you don't want to discuss it? Agnosticism means you don't know, it says nothing about not being able to know. It is not nonsense at all, it is a truth for 99% of people walking this planet. Gnosticism is the opposite, it says you do know - this is plainly egoistic, what do you know? No enlightened person has ever claimed to know anything except truth, but ask him to extrapolate from there and he will be lost.

I thought you just said that agnosticism is the only way to actually know.

I did, because it says you don't already, thus now you can discover it... if you have decided you already know, there is nothing to discover.

That is what gnosticism says though, there is nothing more to discover.

On the contrary, he spoke of truth setting people free and faced martyrdom in the process.

Well, in the apocrypha, Jesus is actually quoted as saying truth is no longer valid or necessary. Seems a contradiction, can you show where he has spoken in favor of truth for me?

I asked you to produce the “worst line in any scripture,” the one in which Jesus supposedly encouraged ignorance, and I am still waiting for you to do that.

You actually didn't, but in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus has said "Blessed are those that have not seen and still believe". He is saying it is good to be ignorant, plain and simple. If you think your blindness is a blessing, why will you pursue seeing?

 

[Lunitik]

Do post a link to this slander and absurdity, I've never heard any of this before.

Google search, there are a bunch...

 

[Etu Malku]

Google search, there are a bunch...

Looked before I spoke . . . found zilch

 

[Lunitik]

How on earth did you conclude that from this video?

it seems to me what Jung was getting at was the Collective Unconsciousness and our ability (or inability) to grab onto it and make sense of our ancient Self, towards Individuation.

You do not see the absurdity of his words because you share his views, what are myths though? They are fabricated stories.

 

[Lunitik]

Looked before I spoke . . . found zilch

How about this one? The very basis for his theory of collective unconsciousness is founded on a patient that committed suicide...

I can read, it was his student who treated briefly the foundation for that theory... even more telling, really.

 

[Etu Malku]

How about this one? The very basis for his theory of collective unconsciousness is founded on a patient that committed suicide...

I can read, it was his student who treated briefly the foundation for that theory... even more telling, really.

Oy Vey . . . this guy had what was called paranoid dementia, not to mention all psychologists have patients that committed suicide, certainly the very demented ones that Jung tackled.

And that's ONE . . . LOL! Hardly a case you've made here

As for Jung being a moron and such, the comments at the bottom don't paint the same picture.

Admit it . . . you're a Jung-Hater!!


Also, Jung's concept of collective unconscious is based on his experiences with schizophrenic persons, not one, since he worked in the Burgholzli psychiatric hospital.

 

[Etu Malku]

You do not see the absurdity of his words because you share his views, what are myths though? They are fabricated stories.

Myths are more than fabricated stories.

They establish models for behaviorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology#cite_note-33http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology#cite_note-honkomythfunction-34 and also provide a religious experience to some.

Joseph Campbell (possibly the most most informed scholar on myths) defined myths as having four basic functions:
the Mystical Function—experiencing the awe of the universe;
the Cosmological Function—explaining the shape of the universe;
the Sociological Function—supporting and validating a certain social order; and the Pedagogical Function—how to live a human lifetime under any circumstances.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology#cite_note-38

Remember, in every myth there lies an ounce of truth.

 

[Lunitik]

Oy Vey . . . this guy had what was called paranoid dementia, not to mention all psychologists have patients that committed suicide, certainly the very demented ones that Jung tackled.

And that's ONE . . . LOL! Hardly a case you've made here

As for Jung being a moron and such, the comments at the bottom don't paint the same picture.

Admit it . . . you're a Jung-Hater!!

Yes, certainly I am, the guy is a buffoon.

It is funny though, you start out defending Jung because my statement of patient suicide is "slander", now you say it is perfectly normal for patients to commit suicide - I merely point out that the guy has not helped anyone.

The guy that committed suicide was a STUDENT, there was nothing wrong with him at all when he came to Jung. The patient had tried before, and this student collected details of the visions that eventually led to his theory of collective unconscious but again his STUDENT killed himself.

Perhaps patients I can understand, but those he is merely teaching his theories to? It just underscores how harmful his "findings" are, he has created insanity because he approaches problems UTTERLY wrong. He goes back to analyze the past which CANNOT be changed. Every patient of his can be cured simply by saying "do not worry about the past, it is dead, let it rest" but no, he goes on analyzing the patients very issue. The issue is not the real problem at all, it is the CLINGING to the issue that is the problem.

 

[Lunitik]

Remember, in every myth there lies an ounce of truth.

... for every ton of fecal matter.

 

[seattlegal]

... for every ton of fecal matter.

Methinks Lunatik just enjoys slinging fecal matter. Personally, I prefer paintballs.

​

 

[Etu Malku]

Yes, certainly I am, the guy is a buffoon.

It is funny though, you start out defending Jung because my statement of patient suicide is "slander", now you say it is perfectly normal for patients to commit suicide - I merely point out that the guy has not helped anyone.

The guy that committed suicide was a STUDENT, there was nothing wrong with him at all when he came to Jung. The patient had tried before, and this student collected details of the visions that eventually led to his theory of collective unconscious but again his STUDENT killed himself.

Perhaps patients I can understand, but those he is merely teaching his theories to? It just underscores how harmful his "findings" are, he has created insanity because he approaches problems UTTERLY wrong. He goes back to analyze the past which CANNOT be changed. Every patient of his can be cured simply by saying "do not worry about the past, it is dead, let it rest" but no, he goes on analyzing the patients very issue. The issue is not the real problem at all, it is the CLINGING to the issue that is the problem.

Do you have a degree in psychology by chance?
I'm not going to debate Jung's validity with you, THAT is insane.
You're right he was a student, my oversight.

 

[seattlegal]

Myths are more than fabricated stories.

They establish models for behavior and also provide a religious experience to some.

Joseph Campbell (possibly the most most informed scholar on myths) defined myths as having four basic functions:
the Mystical Function—experiencing the awe of the universe;
the Cosmological Function—explaining the shape of the universe;
the Sociological Function—supporting and validating a certain social order; and the Pedagogical Function—how to live a human lifetime under any circumstances.

Remember, in every myth there lies an ounce of truth.

I would say that Jungian archetypes can be quite helpful helping someone through elaborate Makyo and in interpreting dreams and visions. It's sorta like the language of the subconscious mind.

 

[Lunitik]

Do you have a degree in psychology by chance?
I'm not going to debate Jung's validity with you, THAT is insane.
You're right he was a student, my oversight.

Jung has not even known his own mind, yet you trust him to know others? He has not even noticed his own mind justifying his own actions, but he's supposed to understand the nature of our own actions?

Seriously, his statements on female archetypes are a joke, he is justifying his own perversion for young women in published texts and people accept it because its from this man. I don't need a psychology degree to know he is an idiot. It is also humorous what he says about Eastern thinking, he was told to go see a Sage when he went to India but when he returned he went on about how Eastern psyches are simply different, he feared everything they told him.

 

[Lunitik]

I would say that Jungian archetypes can be quite helpful helping someone through elaborate Makyo and in interpreting dreams and visions. It's sorta like the language of the subconscious mind.

Jung would simply discover the nature of the delusion and concentrate you on it, he knows nothing of getting people out of them. Maybe through the analysis you might change your perspective through different insights, but those insights are from mind as well so it is just a surface change - the issue remains, you just might look at it differently.

Zen is about dropping dreams and illusions and finding the real, it is exactly the basis for saying Jung is describing an unenlightened man, because Zen teachings will actually help to overcome these things, nothing of Jung will do that.