It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Carl Jung no more than a man

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I find some people truly fascinating. The other day when i did my own time research i happened to stumble upon the Jungian metaphysical world of perception. This isnt the first time i came across his world, but i never really dived into it, mostly because most of his theories are subjective, metaphysical and are trying to transcend the human race into something it can never become, well "I" dont think we can transcend into a divine "thing".

His world is not dogma, its not universal ( Well, depends in which universe your mind is in ) its a philosophical statement of who we once were and the hope of what we could become. The unconscious mind and the conscious mind and their battle for a bipedal body, with two eyes to see, two ears to listen, two nostrils to smell and one mouth to taste, even to this aspect its still subjective to your own unconscious and conscious mind

What people might not know is that Jung was a pupil of Sigmund Freud the father of psychoanalysis. Jung had every opportunity for ground breaking research with a masterful teacher and mentor, but when he opened Pandoras box all he ever saw was hope in the bottom of it. His phrases changed from scientific to mystic, his reports became philosophical statements, and for mankind he was lost, he ventured to far from the path and forgot where he started.

Dont get me wrong, he grew a following, mostly because, what i believe he wrote in a way, that could be interpret to any ones desires. But, what was the point? That each and everyone of us is capable of heroic acts or terrible misdeeds? We already know that..

He ventured into the world of Religion and Mythology but he never had an open mind and was trapped like so many others before him. He couldnt get out, just because he couldnt let go of hope.

He saw the primitive man as someone without a soul, reacting on impulses without any control. No more than an animal roaming the wild relying on instincts for survival. I wont say he is wrong, but what are we truly? If we separate ourselves from the animal kingdom, how do we behave? Is the concept of a soul, slaughtering animals to provide for a population of 7,5 billion humans? Even Jung despite of his words, separated himself to something bigger just to enjoy that lovely steak.

The reason i never jumped down in Jungs world is because he was a man with a grand delusion who had a talent to write philosophy.
edit on 2016126 by tikbalang because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Jung was indeed a pupil of Freud but, it was a damned good move to jump away from him. Freud did some pioneering work but is always spoken of as the unenlightened past. Jung's ideas are still largely explored/not disproved. Carl would have been even more phenomenal integrated with modern neurobiology. I don't want to have to repeat it but, perhaps the one thing which will always escape even the most powerful inquiring mind, is itself.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Jung was definitely a pioneer in the field of personality psychology. His ideas are still relied upon heavily in that specific area but also psychology in general when talking about the grand concepts. I wouldn't really call his work unscientific (especially not compared to Freud), as drawing conclusions without the large data sets and statistical analysis is just the nature of doing case studies. His work was mostly qualitative and clinical.

In my opinion, when Jung split from Freud he transcended the limitations of traditional psychology to include other concepts from religion and metaphysics. Why stick with one tool if there are many tools at your disposal which can get the job done better? For instance, I have my degree in psychology and did statistical health psychology research and spent some time in clinical settings. However, I learned the most about people from reading Dostoevsky, Hesse, Bukowski.

Humans are so much more than just animals. Human nature is a vast, far too vast and complicated than any one person in one life can explain or comprehend.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AtheAlmightyOne


Carl would have been even more phenomenal integrated with modern neurobiology.


Dont you think they would reference to him if they believed he was groundbreaking? It seems to always become a spiritual path when you talk about Jungian. ( occult, Mystic )



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: tikbalang

Eh The relationship between Jung and Freud is overplayed. IF you read Red Book ( Liber Novus) you will see that relationship is not as clear cut as is implied in your post. I'm not a fan of his archtype theory, but I'm a hard polytheist so I would not be



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: filched

Freud based much of his science on the field of zoology and the animals kingdoms cultural development, and natural environment. Freuds work compared to Jung was that Freud used observational methods and repeating behavioral patterns.

Even Jung admit that Human is a concept created by a transcending,metaphysical idea 6000 years ago and the very existing idea of the soul is that we can choose despite having our basic animal needs granted by mother nature.
Without them we would not be alive, to transcend them means nothing more than genetic selective selection thats rewarded by the existing cultural dogma, to shorten it down, its nothing less than suicide or a race against our genetic clock.

Humans are nothing more than animals, i can train my dog to sit, its called neoteny. Can i train a wolf to sit? Maybe, but the chances are slim.

If domesticating primates means quote;" Humans are so much more than just animals." and using that as an excuse to behave unnaturally in an wild environment thats not meant for humans, means the point of having a soul means nothing if it does more damage than good.

Humans are built the same way as any other specie on this planet, just because we can fantasize about great achievements, doesnt mean everything else isnt real.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Yes i know you are a polytheist, their relationship was that of a Master and a Pupil one believed we could change the other said we cant change but we can fix the problems to a certain degree.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: tikbalang

Again have you read the Liber Novus? Because Jung denied that Master and Pupil relationship, while Freud and his followers pushed it. It certainly diverged over time.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

If you teach me biology, do you consider yourself a teacher?



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: tikbalang

Except Freud did not teach Jung any more than Jung taught Feud (even if Feud refused to admit it). Their relationship as I said was more complex.

Also I don't teach biology


But to answer your question, I only teach those willing to learn, and I claim nothing beyond having taught them what I taught them.

Like I said, the Liber Novus tells another side of the story. I don't agree with Jungs ideas, or Freuds, but they are not the same



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I find this intriguing, Jung emphasized the meaning of having a soul; I would consider you being against that concept.

However Freud moved the field of zoology to explain human behavior in modern day society, neither are right or wrong, but Freud material is a textbook of how our society works.

Why do you disagree?



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: tikbalang

Why would I be against that concept? My ancestral faith talked of souls. But again I said, I don't really agree with a lot of Jungs ideas, or Freuds.

Why do I disagree.

Simple answers.

To begin with Jung implies the ideas of religion are all constructs of the Psyche. I do not.

Freud? He over simplified things.

Less Simple answers.

Both of their ideas (those they shared, and those they did not) don't sit right with me, and I've read extensively from both of them. It does not agree with what I feel. Its not a matter of logic for them, or for me. It is not the right fit for ME.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

So its subjective? Their concepts conflicts with your gnostic?



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: tikbalang

I'm aware Freud based some of his theories on primate studies, e.g. the famous Oedipal complex. As silly of many people think the idea is, it was actually founded on same rather remarkable observations of group behavior among primates. Totem and Taboo was an enlightening book for me. I won't deny that Freud's greatest achievement was the idea of the Unconscious as a mechanism of the mind which links our "rational agency" behavior to that of the survival/mating instincts of primates. That is very profound and one of the great pillars of truth unto itself.

Still though that doesn't explain everything. Human history is the history of revolutionary ideas and the evolution of man from beast to god. If you hadn't noticed, that is where we as a species are purposely heading, to God-form. If we were strictly animals there would be no need to advance technologically/spiritually/ethically beyond the point where our basic needs are satisfied. That our brains developed to deal with abstraction, such that we can manifest ideas into the physical/metaphysical realm, is proof that we are more than our basic biology. We are part animal but we are also part God and probably more so.

You mentioned "just because we can fantasize about great achievements, doesn't mean everything else isn't real." To that I say humans don't fantasize, they actually produce greatness in reality on a daily basis. We went in a very short span of time from being cave dwellers to playing with I-Phones and building quantum computers. That is a feat inconceivable by any other species because their nature makes them 100% content with the current reality frame as long as basic needs are satisfied. If you satisfy a person's basic needs they will always want more, to desire more and to desire to become more, and to push the limits of what is possible. That is basically human nature. Just look at our art. Art is a humans' way of expressing the qualities of the soul. If this were not true then please give me the base explanation as to why people spend millions of dollars on paintings.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Uuhh neoteny is the retention of youthful traits in a mature/adult animal....reply to: tikbalang



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   
I'm being constructively critical of your post by saying you need to try much, much harder if your going to even approach Jung's work.
edit on 7-12-2016 by sophie87 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: tikbalang

Yes it is subjective, it conflicts with my gnosis (spiritual knowledge). All things psychological are essentially subjective, until we can feel what others feel



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: sophie87

Please by all means elaborate, Jung was a Introverted persona and quote by his own works;" An introvert is someone who is an animal but tries to be human ". Most of his work is to the accomplishment "You dont have to" While Freud explains however " This is how it is ", by cross-referencing zoology and not the occult or ancient mystics.

Jung studied the occult extensively and lost himself in the maze, only to be taught that the framework of human consciousness "can not" be taught. To become a human or reach a higher degree of enlightenment is a journey that is yours and only yours, and most will fail and go mad. We are nothing more than animals trying to do something we arent meant to do.

Our unconscious mind is not complex, its not something unique in this world of ours. Many of Jungs works are still unpublished, there is a reason for it, its subjective. The work he did was a psycho analysis of himself trying to explain how he as an introvert felt lost in the world he perceived.

Now please by all means, elaborate on the things i missed



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: tikbalang

Have you used his active imagination technique?

Have you activated the archetypes of the collective unconscious in your own unconscious mind?



edit on 057Wednesday000000America/ChicagoDec000000WednesdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Listening to a voice in your head telling you things




new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join