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.

 

Do you know "the old man"?

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


I thought of my grandfather. My friend claimed she lived in a house haunted by an "old man" who only did good things and pointed out danger. I do have a special endearment to kind, strong, wise old men.

Made me think of this song too.


edit on 2-3-2014 by Maluhia because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Astyanax
reply to post by Danbones
 



actually i'm told i have triangles where i cN'T REACH

You have parts of your body you can't reach? What disability do you suffer from?

nice shoulders and a vee shaped back



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Maybe the old man's jealous.


edit on 3/3/14 by Astyanax because: of arthritis.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

have you seen my threads and posts regarding the celtic cross?
while you are dogging my butt you are missing something really worthwhile...
something that totally rewrites and explains history...
and makes boobs out of the current authority(ies)....

a direct result of my contact with the old man..

all the information was right where he said it would be when he said it would be and how it would be....
and i have been saying he said that for 40 some odd years and have written about it for about 15...
as Danbones...on the internet where it never goes away..and to everyone locally who knows me.


A little taste of "Jesus just left chicago" by ZZTop before I goe


edit on 3-3-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Astyanax
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 



Um, in that list Bertrand Russell was a real person.

A star for you, Captain Obvious. What of it?

Wow, I look forward to your posts for the kindness and (lack of) sense of humor they are always so brimming with.
At least you don't think you're always correct in your opinions -- so refreshing.


That's what makes ATS so special.

The old man can be anything anyone individually interprets him to be.
Not what one poster says, but what every poster says and more.
He can be different for some, or have many common traits for others.
Not just Jung's (and your) thoughts on archetypes.

edit on 3/3/2014 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


I'm sure your posts about the Celtic Cross are very interesting, but I don't see any need for history to be rewritten. I'm quite a history buff, and I find it all hangs together pretty consistently. And the existing evidence is convincing. You may feel differently; disagree by all means.

About the other thing: you aren't the first person to report spirit guides and/or tormentors and you won't be the last. A lot of these people can display wounds, scars and other marks supposedly made by these entities. I won't pretend anyone really understands this phenomenon, but it clearly has a psychological dimension and in a lot of cases that have been studied the marks have turned out to be self-induced. Shamans sometimes inflict wounds on themselves while in a trance. There's a lot of stuff like that out there. Maybe it isn't the case with you, but I am sceptical. Supernatural entities are a bit hard to believe in. Again, you may feel differently.


edit on 3/3/14 by Astyanax because: of an incorrect opinion.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 



Wow, I look forward to your posts for the kindness and (lack of) sense of humor they are always so brimming with.

Yes, aren't I the little ray of sunshine? We'll get to Bertrand Russell in a minute.


At least you don't think you're always correct in your opinions -- so refreshing.

I am often wrong in my opinions; admitting it isn't much of a bullet to bite. In this case, however...


The old man can be anything anyone individually interprets him to be.

...my opinion is that you can't possibly mean it. Anything anyone interprets him to be? Even a young woman? Or a fish on a unicycle?

Okay, okay, I get what you mean. Anything so long as it's an old man, or has something to do with old men.


Not what one poster says, but what every poster says and more.
He can be different for some, or have many common traits for others.

Sure, that's the thing about archetypes. They get built to unconscious specifications using available materials. Cultural materials.

Such as, for example, Bertrand Russell. Yes, he was a real human being. He was also a celebrity. And a celebrity is not quite the same being as the human being with the same face and name. A celebrity is a mental construct; it lives in the mind of the media consumer. It is a cultural artifact. So it begins to take archetypal form. Eventually, the philosopher is dead but his fame lives on, and over time acquires the lineaments of the Wise Old Man.

Now, if you really were serious about that anything, the old boy would have turned into Marilyn Monroe by now. Or a fish on a unicycle.


Not just Jung's (and your) thoughts on archetypes.

Indeed. I agree with you that there's no end to their manifestations, if you look at things according to that schema.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 




Now, if you really were serious about that anything, the old boy would have turned into Marilyn Monroe by now. Or a fish on a unicycle.




Eventually, the philosopher is dead but his fame lives on, and over time acquires the lineaments of the Wise Old Man. Now, if you really were serious about that anything, the old boy would have turned into Marilyn Monroe by now. Or a fish on a unicycle.


Ah more ___.

Acting as though you don't know the context and meaning of what I meant by "anything" is a cute little semantic "trick".

Clever, really. Ok, not "really". Cheap, more like it. The term "straw man" comes to mind.



The Wise Old Man is one of the archetypes of the collective unconscious identified by the great Swiss psychologist and mystic Carl Jung.
I said:


Not just Jung's (and your) thoughts

Back to your quotes:


Indeed. I agree with you that there's no end to their manifestations, if you look at things according to that schema.

"That schema" --Again I take it that you are still referring to my use of the word anything and you intentional "misunderstanding" of what I meant by it.


However, each sees them through the lens of his or her own culture and personal experience, so they differ slightly in form and sometimes in attributes from culture to culture and person to person.

Didn't I basically say that using different words?


The Old Man of whom you speak only exists in your mind. This is true even if you have met him and shaken hands with him yourself.

This is YOUR opinion. As seen from many other posters in this thread, they disagree.
But it's great to have such an authority as yourself to help all of us clarify what we think.

edit on 3/3/2014 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Well the experience my son and I had involved a joint experience, where we both experienced the same thing including his laughing with delight. I didn't jump, it was more like a treasure to store in my heart, as the veil does lift at times for me. But my son was vividly startled. For all the psychological components, we don't share a brain. Two people do not share a vision.
edit on 3-3-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 



Acting as though you don't know the context and meaning of what I meant by "anything" is a cute little semantic "trick".

Don't be silly. I already stated quite clearly that I did understand the context. Refer the sentence in my earlier post that begins 'Okay, okay.' It isn't my fault that you're looking foolish; you did that all on your own.


The term "straw man" comes to mind.

You should look these terms up before chucking them about. A simple precaution, taken, alas, by so few.


Again I take it that you are still referring to my use of the word anything and you intentional "misunderstanding" of what I meant by it.

No, I meant the intellectual framework of Jungian psychology. As should be obvious to any reader (though admittedly not as obvious as the assertion that Bertrand Russell was a man; you win that one on points).


Didn't I basically say that using different words?

You did, and I agreed with you. See earlier post.


As seen from many other posters in this thread, they disagree.

So what? This isn't an election. Even if 50,000 people disagree with me, I'm still right. And so are you, incidentally, apart from your disgracefully sloppy use of the word 'anything'.


But it's great to have such an authority as yourself to help all of us clarify what we think.

If you call blind reaction to a perceived insult thinking.

We need a yawn smiley.


edit on 3/3/14 by Astyanax because: there's always one, isn't there?



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   
its funny, the old man from the sky turned me on to the I Ching
Carl Jung found the I Ching fascinating and wrote about it at great length
I used Jungs opinions on the I Ching to validate the information i got from the old man from the sky

so i find Astyanax's post quit entertaining


edit on 3-3-2014 by Danbones because: spelling

edit on 3-3-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-3-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I have seen him & took his picture, but I don't have a clue who he is.




posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by took red pill
 


That photo looks like a grey with a mars like big foot. Not the old man.

The old man I saw was kindly old man, with gentleness and a lot of humor.

Can't really find a picture but sort of all of this rolled up into one but glowing radiantly, sort of humble and humor at the same time.

thumbs.dreamstime.com...

i.istockimg.com...

Know he didn't have glasses, but didn't really seem to have a beard, and he could have been somewhat balding, can't remember too clearly on the hair.

But not frail.

He was wearing a robe.
edit on 4-3-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Led Zeplin 4.




posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



there's always one, isn't there?

Yeah thanks for that Mr. "Ray of sunshine" (as you called yourself sarcastically),


You should look these terms up before chucking them about. A simple precaution, taken, alas, by so few.


The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 has position X.
Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
en.wikipedia.org...
Your focus on my use of the word "anything" over and over when you knew that was not (in the context) what you continually implied it meant seems to fit.



No, I meant the intellectual framework of Jungian psychology. As should be obvious to any reader

Obvious after focusing on the word "anything"?



Don't be silly. I already stated quite clearly that I did understand the context. Refer the sentence in my earlier post that begins 'Okay, okay.'

Which seems negated when you continue to shift your focus on the word in a different meaning.



I'm still right. And so are you, incidentally,

You said


The Old Man of whom you speak only exists in your mind. This is true even if you have met him and shaken hands with him yourself.

I didn't.

I understand presenting one theory or idea as the only answer is a "tactic" some on ATS are fond of using throughout a thread on different posters.
They have that right.
edit on 3/4/2014 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Unity_99
That photo looks like a grey with a mars like big foot. Not the old man.

The old man I saw was kindly old man, with gentleness and a lot of humor.


I think this one looks kindly. Nothing like a gray, but maybe a bigfoot. I think I see a dog or two with him.




posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


I knew you'd post a dictionary definition, but I thought I'd let you do it rather than anticipate the tactic. I am not making an argument here, simply pointing out that your use of the English language is deplorably careless and that, if you are misunderstood, you have only yourself to blame. For the rest, blame your own lack of reading comprehension and unnecessary quickness to take offence.

After all this palaver, you have yet to answer my original question. Yes, Bertrand Russell was a real person. What of it?

Oh, and by the way, you might want to look up the definition of 'archetype' in that dictionary of yours. If it's a good one, it will tell you who coined the usage we are currently discussing.


edit on 4/3/14 by Astyanax because: a little enlightenment never hurt anybody.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by took red pill
 


That's an old woman, not an old man.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Astyanax That's an old woman, not an old man.


It's a nice mustache, even for an old woman.....



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Astyanax
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


I knew you'd post a dictionary definition, but I thought I'd let you do it rather than anticipate the tactic. I am not making an argument here, simply pointing out that your use of the English language is deplorably careless and that, if you are misunderstood, you have only yourself to blame. For the rest, blame your own lack of reading comprehension and unnecessary quickness to take offence.

After all this palaver, you have yet to answer my original question. Yes, Bertrand Russell was a real person. What of it?

Oh, and by the way, you might want to look up the definition of 'archetype' in that dictionary of yours. If it's a good one, it will tell you who coined the usage we are currently discussing.


edit on 4/3/14 by Astyanax because: a little enlightenment never hurt anybody.


Actually as you should have seen it wasn't from a dictionary. It was from wikipedia, a "source" that is not the best at being consistently reliable.
But seeing as how you used wikipedia for your source for "the old man", I thought it was appropriate.

Though despite your earlier one line confession that you did understand what I meant, you went on to intentionally misunderstand the rest of the post making my use of the term straw man and wikipedia's definition fit.

So, seeing wiki works for you and (in this case) for me, "archetype" has been used by many before and after, but I'm sure you meant Jung, right? He is the only reference you seem to have been using this thread.

Although "to coin the usage"...was that itself a phrase you "coined"? Was that sloppy, intentional, careless of you...what?

coin transitive verb :
to create (a new word or phrase) that other people begin to use
www.merriam-webster.com...

But that is a "real" dictionary.

Wikipedia as a "dictionary" (is that a "good one?" I'd say no, but it's the new "source" of choice for now I take it) refers to neologism:

the name for a newly coined term, word, or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use but that has not yet been accepted into mainstream language.[1][2]
Neologisms are often directly attributable to a specific person, publication, period, or event. Νεολεξία (neolexίa, Greek: a "new word", or the act of creating a new word) is a synonym for it.
A neologism may also be a new usage of an existing word,[4][5] sometimes called a semantic extension.[6][7] This is distinct from a person's idiolect, their unique patterns of vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation.
In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that have meaning only to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning
Source
(I thought I'd see how it felt if I would refer to wikipedia as "source", like you called it as your "the old man" source. I wanted to see if calling it "source" rather than just letting the link be called "wikipedia" lent an air of something more reliable and legitimate.)

In above case you are leading to the answer: Jung. He, in a sort of careless way of wording it, "coined the usage" of the version of "archetype" you are using.
Yes, was that ever a question whose ideas you were using? You repeatedly made it quite apparent.

Bertrand Russell as an archetype of "the old man" in your usage (I mean Jung's "coin of usage") doesn't quite seem to fit.
He is not "a collectively-inherited unconscious idea, pattern of thought, image, etc., that is universally present in individual psyches".

In fact, I'd wager a very small percentage of people on Earth have ever even heard of him--much less would think of him as "the old man".

I felt this was fairly apparent before, so I didn't address your original question of "A star for you, Captain Obvious. What of it?"
He is not a timeless "collectively-inherited unconscious idea" like Santa.
After all this palaver, I will here on ignore your posts and contribute in response to others if and when and how I see fit.
edit on 3/5/2014 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join