DSM-IV the spirituality That underlies Psychiatry

Originally posted by StopComplaining
Sort of like how madame Blavatsky writes about the good devil lucifer?

Understand this is my stand point; The devil is a REAL personal being. He can appear as an angle of light.

It does not matter what your opinion is of him, it does not matter how he appears to you, it does not matter what your interpretation is, it doesn't matter if you change his name, it doesn't even matter if you don't beleive in him. The devil is the devil. The Bible tells us how to discern what is of the devil and what is not.

Well, it does matter an awful lot, because in order to feel the way that you do about the Devil, one would have to agree with the perspective that the Bible gives on it.

If one differs from the perspective given in the Bible, a different entity emerges from the shadow of the serpent. A whole host of figures, in fact.

Originally posted by eight bits
We find that to all appearances, Jung's creation influenced a major work written by a Literature Nobelist.

That would seem to enjoy some relevance to your credibility as a critic of Jung.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by eight bits]

If we are able to use guilt/praise by flimsy associations in order to justify our point, rather than straight reason and logic how about these associations in regards to Psychiatry.

I G Farben
Death Camps
Dr. Cameron
Mengele
Torture
Genocide
NAZI
Soviet
Mind Control
Pharmakia/sorcery

And these associations In regards to Jung

Jung appears on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band on the top row along with Alistair Crowley (Satanist). Therefore Jung is now directly responsible for everything Alistair Crowley did.

Elisabeth Kubler-Ross frequently saw Jung walking around the lake, therefore Jung can take credit for everything she ever did. She was involved with phony spirit mediums, therefore Jung is a crook.

Churches are frequently influenced (to my dismay) by Jungian Psychology, now a critique of the Churches is in order to establish whether Jungs work has merit. Seeing as we can probably agree that Churches are largely a failure, it must refelcet badly on Jung.

My point is that I want to stay on topic and critique the logic behind the DSM IV.


[edit on 28-10-2009 by StopComplaining]

Originally posted by eight bits

Hesse was in therapy, and his therapist may well have read a privately circulated copy of the unpublished (at that time) poem.

By the same logic I could link Jung to AA and then debunk Jung because my alchohlism was not fixed. (I never had alchohlism is was just rhetorical).

"The influence of Jung thus indirectly found its way into the formation of Alcoholics Anonymous, the original twelve-step program, and from there into the whole twelve-step recovery movement, although AA as a whole is not Jungian and Jung had no role in the formation of that approach or the twelve steps."

I am just trying to say that we should stay on topic instead of talking about someone who is only vaguely associated, Hesse.

Plus I don't like that "Born to be wild" song anyway.



[edit on 28-10-2009 by StopComplaining]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by StopComplaining
I have just come back from a walk. A guy covered in tattoes came out of his appartment stood by the door screached in a demonic manner and started raising his arms up and down as if in worship of me. I simply rebuked the devil in the name of Jesus Christ.

I bet he was really hurting after you did that number on him.

[edit on 25-10-2009 by bsbray11]

LMFAO!!!

StopComplaining....did you stop to think why legion came out to greet you? I would wager he was drunk.and no, he was not possessed. People give way to much power to Satan.

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by StopComplaining
I have just come back from a walk. A guy covered in tattoes came out of his appartment stood by the door screached in a demonic manner and started raising his arms up and down as if in worship of me. I simply rebuked the devil in the name of Jesus Christ.

I bet he was really hurting after you did that number on him.

[edit on 25-10-2009 by bsbray11]

LMFAO!!!

StopComplaining....did you stop to think why legion came out to greet you? I would wager he was drunk.and no, he was not possessed. People give way to much power to Satan.

He was perhaps on P (ice, Crystal Meth, I don't know what it is called overseas).

But regardless the name of Jesus works, people will get to the point of being dismembered and boiled in a kettle and not call upon Jesus.

When it came to the shaman being boiled nobody thought that was absurd. Everybody seems to thinks Jung channeling spiritual entities is scholarly and regards his sermons with solemnety. By the way I did literally laugh until I cried reading his sermons.

You will accept the idea presented in the DSM IV that alien abductions is a means to spiritual awakening, but you cannot have any faith in the name of Jesus?

I suggest you find a crop circle and stand in the middle of it at midnight looking vulnerable.

Sort of like how madame Blavatsky writes about the good devil lucifer?

Understand this is my stand point; The devil is a REAL personal being. He can appear as an angle of light.

I do not understand to whom this was addressed. If it was about Goethe's conception of Mephistopheles, then no. His Mephistopheles is not a "good devil" in any sense. Angels of light are characters in Faust, and they are visibly not of Mephistopheles' party.

Goethe's Mephistopheles is a fictional character. Whether or not he is "based on" any real person would be for you to judge for yourself.

Abraxas simply translates as the god whose name is adored. From the Egyptian "abrak" to bow down and adore".

Jung was clearly aware of the historical artifacts which attest to Abraxas, and variations thereof, as a divine name in ancient times. There's nothing about his Seven Sermons that suggests Jung had an aspiration to revive any ancient cult, however.

In fact, there is no reason whatsoever to consider the "Seven Sermons" as theology. There is every reason to read the poem as a commentary on the constitution of the human psyche. Commenting on the constitution of the human psyche was what Jung did for a living. He circulated the poem among fellow professionals in that field. It is simply not a "religious tract," nor an "anti-religious tract."

Abraxas is often associated with the god Iao.

Who in turn, in recent times, is associated with Crowley, Theosophists, and their admirers.

As a psychiatrist, Jung may have had a personal opinion about folks-in-the-news like Crowley . On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be any influence in either direction.

If we are able to use guilt/praise by association in order to justify our point, rather than straight reason and logic how about these associations in regards to Psychiatry.

That's a big if. Jung has nothing to do with any of the items on your list, so guilt by association fails again. I guess that's why it is classified as a rhetorical fallacy.

Jung appears on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band on the top row along with Alistair Crowley (Satanist).

So what? Jung is dead. Anybody can stick his picture anywhere.

By the same logic I could link Jung to AA and then debunk Jung because my alchohlism was not fixed. (I never had alchohlism is was just retorical).

No, the "logic" was to establish a route by which Hesse would have encountered the unpublished Seven Sermons before 1919. Your struggles with alcoholism would have nothing to do with that. Jung was neither a founder nor a member of AA, unless he was so anonymously, of course.

AA's "Twelve Steps" invoke God by name, and counsel humility before God and righteous behavior. I am not saying Jung would disapprove, but as for any personal opportunity to influence AA, I think Jesus beat him to it.

I am just trying to say that we should stay on topic instead of talking about someone who is only vaguely associated, Hesse.

If you feel there is a moderation issue in my reference to Hesse in partial rebuttal to your calumny of Jung, then you should call in a moderator.

Regardless of what people think of my opinion, people should know the valid concerns held by many MDs, ExPsychiatrists, and anyone who has studied history in regars to Psychiatry. I suggest starting with some of these links.

www.blinkx.com...

www.blinkx.com...

www.blinkx.com...

[edit on 28-10-2009 by StopComplaining]

It was a speculative logic in which Hesse COULD have been influential to Hesse. And I have equally established that Jung COULD have been influential in creating AA.


They are both equally moot.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by StopComplaining]

Originally posted by eight bits

AA's "Twelve Steps" invoke God by name, and counsel humility before God and righteous behavior. I am not saying Jung would disapprove, but as for any personal opportunity to influence AA, I think Jesus beat him to it.

A Church once took a Satanist to AA. The AA told the Satanist to simply give his alchoholic problem over to "his" god SATAN.

There is no possible way you could line up the tenets of AA with the word of God found in the Bible. It is ILLOGICAL to say that this is the case, whether it is ASSOCIATED with Christianity or not.



[edit on 28-10-2009 by StopComplaining]

[edit on 28-10-2009 by StopComplaining]

reply to post by eight bits


I am dissapointed that you did not get angry at the "Born to be wild" remark.

It was a speculative logic in which Hesse COULD have been influential to Hesse. And I have equally established that Jung COULD have been influential in creating AA.


They are both equally moot.

No, that Jung influenced Hesse through Hesse's therapist early on, and then later through other avenues as well, is uncontroversial. There is before us only the scrupulous point of how an element of a specific work of Jung showed up in a specific early work of Hesse's. There is nothing "speculative" about it; it did happen, we are down to the minutiae of how it happened.

We are, in a sense, excluding synchronicity. I would think you would approve of that.

Jung's influence on AA, in contrast, would not be the faithful transmission of some specific element of his writing or thinking to someone else. It would only be the general influence that is inevitable because there is a lot of psychology behind the AA program, and Jung helped to mold so much of contemporary psychological thought.

Contemporary psychological thought is what you wrote to complain about, including that Jung had such a prominent role in molding it. So, neither subtopic is "moot." However, I do think that AA has less to tell us about anything specifically Jungian than Demian does.

I am dissapointed that you did not get angry at the "Born to be wild" remark.

I shall try harder in the future .

Originally posted by eight bits
[
No, that Jung influenced Hesse through Hesse's therapist early on, and then later through other avenues as well, is uncontroversial. There is before us only the scrupulous point of how an element of a specific work of Jung showed up in a specific early work of Hesse's. There is nothing "speculative" about it; it did happen, we are down to the minutiae of how it happened.

OK I will take your word for it.

Well I have the book on my lap right now, I can't make any sense out of it at all. Probably because it is not in english. Evidently he was also influenced by Nietzche, he probably considered himself Übermensch elistist that he was.


"Alle Schrecken des Chaos drohten mir, alles Haisliche und Gefahrliche war gegen mich aufgeboten"

"Uberall gemeinsamkeit, uberall Zusammenhocken, uberall Abladen des Schicksals und Flucht in warme Herdennahe!" (Herdennahe?)

"Es stand in Jesus, es stand in Nietzche."

"um neu geboren werden zu konnen. Es kampfte sich ein Riesenvogel aus dem Ei, und das Ei war die welt, und die Welt muiste in trummer gehen" (ORDO AB CHAO?)



[edit on 28-10-2009 by StopComplaining]

Hi Stop Complaining,
It seems you overlooked a conversation we were having? Or am I to take from the lack of response that I am fooled by your Satan and so am worthless to you?

I talked about REAL experience, not foolery. Because your experience was not validated by getting to your real higher-self, which mirrored the experience of another person, does not mean the entire process is Evil.

Did anyone tell you to test these "Guides"? Your Bible does. Wonder why it would if having contact with them is evil?

A decent teacher will insure you connect with the divine portion of God you are in your higher awareness. Your encounters were to learn from, not that it is all evil, but to learn how to discern what is foolery and what is not so that you could then go with the Not Foolery. Instead you dumped the whole thing and now call it evil from Satan and judge other as so.

There is a difference between having contact, and conjuring.

Originally posted by StopComplaining
Don't take it as to much of an honour, everyone on this thread has been designated as a respected foe.

I wasn't even in this thread and I was foe'd. Way to introduce yourself, StopComplaining. It's very nice to meet you. Fascinating perspective you have.

Speaking of AA... repeat after me:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Amen



(That's probably some sort of blasphemy too, isn't it?)

Edited to add:

I'm not a fan of psychiatry either, but mostly because they work for the pharmaceutical companies and TPTB to drug people and oppress anyone who doesn't conform to what is "normal". No offense to anyone who works in the field, I understand you want to help people.

[edit on 10/28/2009 by eMachine]

reply to post by eMachine


I have no idea how you got foe'd I must have just fired a few stay bullets in the air and you got hit 7 threads away ... but seeing as your here ...

[edit on 29-10-2009 by StopComplaining]

reply to post by Tayesin


Sorry to burst your bubble but mother earth doesn't exist.

I can think of two testimonies of spirituality being applied to conventional therapy.
While my mother was a counsellor at the university, one of the counsellors in her unit told her the following experience.

A lady was pregnant and considering abortion, the counsellor suddenly had a “Psychic” experience. The communication was that the baby was never meant to be born and permission was given from “beyond” to abort the baby. The counsellor then told the client the message hesitantly saying “don’t tell anyone because I am not a psychic or anything”

Another one was an account from Raymond Moody MD who gave an account of a couple who were heartbroken after a stillbirth/miscarriage (I can’t remember which). A Female Angel (;!?!?!? The Bible says there is no such things as a female Angel and forbids the worship of angels,) appeared to the women and told her the baby would be taken away and not to worry about it. Nonetheless the couple were distraught and the female blamed her Cocaine abuse during pregnancy, and the male blamed his alcoholism.

Why are these spiritual events both promoting the murder of babies? Don’t you think the couple should be convicted (emotionally/spiritually speaking) of their substance abuse?


[edit on 29-10-2009 by StopComplaining]

reply to post by Tayesin


I have to admit Tayesin the world is heading in your direction. Charlatans like you are being employed by the U.N., Teaching in public schools, Consulting to Politicians, even heading major "Christian Churches", and writting "Christian" literature.

We are heading into a world created maintained and overseen by "Spirit Guides". But as we head on this freight train charging towards a New Age Nightmare. Can't we just step back and take a look at were this thing is heading.