So, Nrchy you want to start the Groucho Wire Co. w/ me? We can start selling stock....we'll even give the Audiogon staff stock options. Extruded super duper cabling for the recording industry & audio enthusiast. Profit = (margin x volume), right?
Let's find an extruder in Mexico--I've got the connections (companies like Extrumex) and the CD ROMs. Did I forget to mention my girlfriends in Monterrey? They dance for a living! I'm sure you will find them appealling-- I am a man of good taste...
Sounds like a good project--send me a few Dominus for evaluation! |
Muralman, don't say nasty personalized things to people that you are afraid to be heard. If you talk with different degrees of nicety depending upon your audience vs. anonymity, well, we're back to that self-reflection thing again. I told you, given my accepting of your "Peace" gesture, that your continued nastiness in private was "tactless" and told you, on that basis, that I wouldn't talk to you privately any longer. Yes, I can see why you wouldn't want to talk about it. Now, insinuating drunkeness, that's petty - and I would say, once more a symptom of what I've been saying about your credibility and inability to put your views forward authentically, shifting contexts when it suits or when you don't want to respond in a forthright manner. My, what a memory.
On your system, once again you are putting words in my mouth, even though I've told you before differently and you know so. Specifically, I have told you before that I respect the Pass stuff, and your own amp too. I've also said that I liked your Jolida, especially with the NOS tubes - a nice 'lil piece (and a very good buy at $900 and a good choice IN THAT CONTEXT). But again, my citing of your system and its limitations - which you still have not conceded or sufficiently addressed beyond a quote from your neighbor, and now saying that any speaker not ribbon-based is inherently inferior and implying that all tube gear by its nature can not get you close to the source - is the point, and especially given the context of your absolutist statements concerning wire like the Dominus (even though now you seem, in between statements of converting others, to be backing away from).
This was never a thread seeking to warn "budding" audiophiles away from the evils of over-priced wire, nor did it ever exclude consideration of wire such as the Dominus; in fact, discussing Dominus and Dominus-like wire was its main thrust. It was an in-depth discussion of many issues, many of which you engaged in. To now claim, after your assumptions and empiric methodologies have been questioned, that it was always something else is, again, a manifestation of your inauthenticity.
Yes, I can loose my patience, but most always with people who act like you do, publicly or privately. Its a disappointment given your intellect and intelligence.
Now, shoo shoo, fly away. |
Asa & Muralman: I should give you guys boxing gloves, videotape the fight and then sell the copies here on Dutch auctions! I bet we would sell two hundred copies in a week... |
Hey, hand 'em over!! No really, isn't it somewhat entertaining while we wait to see if this thread will resusitate? I don't think Muralman's ego-skin is pierced too much by me, that's someone/something else's job, not mine. Its just when someone goes back months to mine through threads to find a place where you said you were hungover, so sorry (after the other person had apologized first for their fall off the deep end, which, in all, wasn't really bad), you only had three drinks but because you had lung cancer at 28, yourea lung-less wonder and your body doesn't metabolize alcohol too well and it made you sick the next day, so someone takes that and tries to say, or insinuate, that you are a drunk, or were drunk when you posted. And, of course, all after the above.
Now, who owes who an apology? Did Muralman really loose his last post in the mail - the dog ate it, as it were - or did he just need the time to dig through a ton of my old posts looking for a place where he could call me a drunk, and by the time he got back the thread had moved on?
Hmmm. That irritates me, yes.
Oh, by the way, I want international rights on that videotape. |
O heck, ASA and I thought I would bootleg the tape and show it to my students in CGJ studies. )-: |
I know what Carl J. would say about "Muralman and me" (soon to be a major motion picture directed by Michael Moore): heys youz, lighten up on the mining of the bad guy archetype! Hey, detlof, a question: is the devil archetype embedded in the "sub-conscious" before the angel one, or after? In other words, does the devil only exist as a recoil from the loss of angelic bliss, or anticipation of loss, or were they imprinted at that evolutionary epoch, deep within the brain, deep within the consciousness, at the same time? And, what is the relationship between brain physiology - say, the triune brain theory - and the matter originations of archetypal awareness/effects of its prism? Have the matter-attached behaviorists tried to highjack Jung with a matter-focused brain matter theory? You see, I am thinking of jung.
Oh my GOD!!! Clueless, stop me!! |
Asa, shouldn't they should coexist, the one taking precedence over the other through the fear of loss (Kant?) -- or the expectation of bliss (Feuerbach?)?
(Have I masked my ignorance of Jung well enough? I wish I were as assiduous as Detlof when the time was ripe...)
On topic: Psychic, you're not going to invest in an extruder now, are you? FORGET capital intensive projects nowadays... Just come up with the cable & price it @ $+10k. It'll be A'gon approved (that's our contribution) and there MUST be at least ONE taker -- surely. Word of mouth & you'll soon have a small but devoted following, ready to swear in your favour. THEN, we'll work out the Mk II model together; previous owners get a special "upgrade" number & price; new buyers are only admitted to the "wire purchasing club" (i.e. to spend their $11.767 - price has gone up) after being recommended by TWO other MkI owners. We'll issue a personalised card that allows access to the most esoteric information on music. Three tips per annum is max.
The objective is to build a small, select, ultra-elitist global community.
Of course, ALL our products are and will continue to be built by hand (who needs to spend a mill. on extruders & the like). We'll enlist the names of various members here on the management/product development team for marketing credibility reasons: a shrink (psycho-acoustics, VERY important): +5% on the asking price), an EE (obvious), philosophers (more than obvious; +5% on the price). Maybe, even a lazy middle-European (me, please).
Who can beat this cable?
On a more serious note, I wonder what would happen if Dominus were priced @ mass-market level: would the manufacturer be better off? I doubt it: imagine the investment required to cover the demand. I doubt they'd ever break-even, poor devils! |
Greg, we just subcontract an extruder--and if it's in Mexico we'll discuss business at the 'restaurant' where my girlfriends work and we'll charge on the Visa (actually the charge says "Restaurant Bar Alvarado"--my kind of place). Get the point?
On a serious note, if the Purist was that essential for recording someone like Mapleshade or Chesky would be using it--then a more sensible marketing structure would follow...and someone true to the music would become an evangelist about the product--just like Kevin Barret is a 1200 evangelist.
The more I play with my newly arranged system the more I reallize how futile it is to keep upgrading. Truth is my system's limit is the recording I am playing. No amount of money will be able to compensate for that--especially with the music that I listen to. This I emailed to Sedond a few minutes ago:
"In my system, I've realized the new homebrew speaker wire is not limiting--it's the source components. I need to get a modded ART Di/O and properly damp my CDP's transport. My 1200 needs better cabling (cryo'ed)and proper burn-in. I need to get rid of that Sumiko headshell and just use the silver wires in the Technics headshell, which is *much* lighter. Then get the upgraded Power Supply for my Monolithic and have Dan Wright put a top of the line Burr Brown op amp and some high speed Shotsky rectifiers. That's what will really kick my system in--not a $700-800 interconnect. The Tice ICs will get LN2 cryo & TPT retreatment, though...best bang for the $$$."
My mind is very clear. |
Hey Psychic, why don't we hammer out the B-plan just in case there are takers... this is a crazy world, you know! |
LOL, Asa, no he won't. He'll follow this thread in silent wonder only to break from the bushes at the right moment.
To your question briefly, lest Arnie and the others chide us, that what the Catholics tell us in their idea of the privatio boni, is that the horned one is, as you say, only an epiphenomenon of ultimate goodness. Not so, says the old man from Zurich, the devil is the other face of GOD. Therefore you have to love and to fear him at the same time. He had all the theologists of his time aflame of course. Not so, that the behaviorists hijacked Jung. They don't bother to read him. But the Jungians proudly point out, that some of their master's ideas seem to be corroborated by "modern science", as if that was the greater truth. LOL again.......
Greg, read you post only now, your marketing plan is truly mephistophelian, i.e. blissfully good and no, you need neither Kant nor Feuerbach, just read the book of Job. But your point is excellent. Cheers, |
O.K. after over 200 posts I'm convinced I'm a pervert. I keep returning like someone who goes to auto races to see the crashes. I'm just waiting to see if the first person to hang themselves does so from the lenght of this thread or from an appropriate length of the latest fab cable. |
Where is Muralman?!! I must be loosing my touch...
Unsound, yes, incidious, it must be stopped, stone the witch(es). Yea, BTW, isn't that a cable hanging loosley around your neck, you know, lookin' kinda like a noose? :)
Gregm: interesting point, thank you. I knew it was too much to mix the material relationship of Jungian (or is it Neo-Jungian?) archetypes together with the idea of bliss/not-bliss, and their sequence, if any. Ok, let me think... Each "coexist" you say, like in an integral, dynamic relationship where ones existence necessarily implies the other? I think that occurs as the dynamic in oscillation between the two (as prey recoil from the fear of loss, and as predator grasping towards the potentiality of bliss, or absense of loss). So, at the deepest level of consciousness, is a binary oscillation bewteen seeking bliss and avoiding its absense. But isn't that always about bliss? Isn't a predator created (in human consciousness) by the fear of becoming prey in the first instance? So, which is first, or are they both merely reflections of each other, each manifesting different to the eye based on their relationship to fear? Tao Te Ching says that this is the spinning wheel (hope and fear are still rungs on a ladder;the amoeba's binary instinctual program of light/dark, prey/predator, eat/be eaten, etc.) and that you can, by seeing this oscillation within yourself and, thus, seeing below it, step off the wheel, or step beyond it, realizing that it was powered by your own beleif in it. So, if that is true, then the oscillation spins as you describe, but its existence does not exclude the possibility of transcending it. What is your true face? Hope I understood you and not too confusing here.
Psychanimal: yes, it can become a spinning wheel if you get focused on the things of audio too much, switching too much. But what I found interesting is that you think your wires now have a greater performance envelope than the electronics. A materialist who thinks only amps are components might say, how can you tell that; if the components aren't translating? How can you tell its the wire? Of course, under the same reasoning, then how could we ever tell if one piece of electronics is superior to another? BTW, I like Tice wire, good value, good harmonics, should respond well to the cryo in its weak spots.
Detlof: what is Jung's true face, even if he doesn't see it? Love and fear at once; how Old Testament of him. It looks as if Carl J. couldn't escape his demons, so he just said they must "co-exist". First Rule: don't limit the Tao/God/Jehovah with two faces - that's a binary thing. When you listen to beautiful music what face do you have, predator-face or prey-face, or no-face? What is your true face-not-a-face? But you know this, don't you (the answer you have, before you started to answer to yourself)?
Detlof: yes, consciousness states are corrolated with material parts of the brain, although they are not bound by it. I was just wondering, since I pretty much stopped reading all the technical stuff a few years ago, if there was anything new. Not really important, though, just curious. You have better things to do than listen to me yap, I know. But thanks anyway. "Greater truth"? Why do psychologists always want to be scientists, or have a knee-jerk reaction to wanting to seem "scientific"? I think before one practices psychology one should know what it is. If you want to conduct experiments on things, go be a scientist (unless, of course, you can get to categorizing a rat as a thing...). Since the practice of psychology - therapy - is only as good as the therapist, it always has struck me as disconcerting that the one "treating" is more interested in the efficacy of his/her method than seeing through his/her own ego to see the fallacy of that attachment. Hmmm. Detlof, I am confident your are a very good therapist (read: healer). |
Asa, I am with you as regards psychology and those "treating" in the name of it, not so in the case of Jung. It is not a question of coexistence, that is far too comfortable, it is a paradoxon, which has to be born and lived through until it becomes unimportant. Come one, you know that...... |
Yes, paradox. Did he see it, merely touch it and tell others, or live within it, comfortably, stably? At the end of the power of the thinking mind is paradox of mind; as paradox is lived within, reality reveals, in the case of Jung most famously, infinite succesive temporalities (temporality being a foundation of hypothetico-deductive cognition; cognition operates upon reality through a comparative temporal construction). Linearity releases its grip and temporality becomes flux, revealing deeper symmetries of change. Jung's "synchronicity" (read paradox: coincidence not coincidence) is a perception that is temporally-based as much as "normal" thinking. In other words, temporal perception has not faded into paradox - it only looks that way to the temporal-linear mind - but has evolved: it sees "synchronous-ly" and the same way it always did at the same time. One level transcends the last, meaning that it moves beyond AND at once includes. I was wondering whether Jung co-existed in this way or merely had peak experiences of that level of perception that he then told people about, erecting an analytic structure to (partially?) describe it and (his innovative extention) apply it therapeutically. Was his perception trans-temporal, so to speak, moment to moment, or now and then with reportage thereafter?
On bliss/not-bliss paradox and transcending of its oscillation (not just seeing it from afar and reporting it to others), given your description of Jung's recoil and ego distortion vis-a-vis others, I would find it - and I say this with utmost respect - highly doubtful that he had transcended that oscillation in a stable sense (that matrix being much, much deeper than even the archetypes, much less transitory destabilzation of linearity producing "paradox"....detlof, see my personal message on that already sent).
What does this have to do with audio? (jeez, tee'd up on a teeball stand and everything).
I can hear the knives sharpening, the bushes rustling...Oh come on guys, its wide open, take a shot!! Muralman, Subaru et al what am I possibly going to do without you, my foils? (Script reads: high pitched moan, flying monkeys looking on [how about that for an image, detlof!]): I'm melting...I'm melting...oh, my world...
You only have to click your heels three times. You always could go home (ignore the thinking machinating man behind the curtain...). Stop thinking about equipment, that mine is a "component" and yours is not, that experience is secondary to my experiment upon it, etc. and click your heels... chop wood, carry water.
6ch what do you think? |
Asa, I'm disappointed. I thought if any one could see whats around my neck, it would be you. Hint, it's the thread. |
I know, Unsound. I was just joshin' ya. But its still there, you're still here! Run for your lives, its the thread that ate Detroit!! My condolences...
Hey, SO, cable IS a component, even with Muralman's Apogees, even though he's not sure, and yes, scientific measurements are important, but to believe they are primary to the experiement of listening is itself heresy to the Cartesian God, and saying that Dominus is mis-spent money when you yourself spend $7K on a system and there are still (the last time I checked) Bangledeshis is somewhat hipocritical and revealingly self-serving, and, hopefully, enough scientific-attached guys with puny ________ have seen this and will think twice about beating people over the heads with their rulers (is there an archetype for that, detlof?) - until, of course, they get re-juiced by WWF (or is it WWE now?) and their, er, other needs (the puny part) - so, you know, it was a good thing, no?
Oui. |
I know a pretzel factory in Pennsylvania that's looking for help. |
Sub, interesting, do they employ Jungians without a green card?
ASA he lived in it, I think and creatively, which is hardly comfortable and yes, he "co-existed", I think, in the way you so astutely describe. ...in a stable sense transcending..difficult to answer, I doubt it, have to think more about it, perhaps too much a child of the 19th century....archetype for wielding rulers and bashing heads with it ? No... but Anna Freud has it amongst her "defensive mechanisms" against the oh so chaotic and evil unconscous (-; |
detlof: yea, I know, part of me wants to say, yea, he did, then another part says, nah. Stable is usually pretty obvious, although I would suppose that Victorian remnants/attachments were a real bug to get past back then - big conformist pull of the exterior assumptions upon the individual mind. As I said though, there are transitionary zones, so to speak, so 'ol carl may have spent more time there than not. His "visions" of archetypes in the collective subconscious and especially synchronicity (archetypes can be constructed cognitively easier with less direct experience, but synchronocity is not deja vu, and requires, in order to percieve it as he did, more direct immersive experience) are both symptoms of the next level of consciousness emerging in him. Where such perceptions become stable, continuous and co-existent and integrated with "normal" cogntive-based perception is not a bounded line at that stage (at certain higher stages, symptoms can enable greater discernment of stage stability).
Order/Chaos: where does one begin and the other end? When water swirls in "chaotic" turbulence, where is it order-ly? Humans impose a cognitive construction that is binary and dualistic upon "Reality" (and, being the accommodating, maternal reality it is, it is suseptible to such imposition...). Dualism breaks reality into points of reference in which to compare over time, or comparison of data-events over the stream of change ("time" also being a construction), but that does not mean that at deeper symmetries of perception, that at once integrate those above, that the cognitive differentiation between order/chaos is not seen for what it is: a wonderful tool of the mind, a great gift, but still a tool. If 'ol Anna F. wants to break up reality into chaos face (evil) and order-face (bliss) thats ok, but it doesn't exclude its integration. And yes, recoil from the instinctual in one's own mind - seeing it as the beast - is merely a manegestation of one's fear from seeing oneself. Which, of course, keeps all of you Jungians in business! [that, and, of course, the yawning nihlism of the simultaneous recoil of the human mind from everything not it-self; recoil from instincts inside - seeing it in Judeo-Christian terms as the beast/sin and earth as sin-place - and recoil from all outside the ego - categorizing non-human minds as things/products (science and capitalism, respectively). Its ONE BIG recoil, inside/outside at once, not separate. You see, capitalism, scientific materialism and Judeo-Christian doctrine aren't all that much in disagreement afterall. Hmmm, I wonder what that means in evolutionary terms...?]
Subaru, oh thank you for keeping me company! Yes, becoming downwardly mobile is always a worry... |
It strikes me as somewhat interesting that Jung has so many fans here, inasmuch as he was a Nazi sympathizer and sometimes fan. So much for a solid philosophical base! |
Nrchy yes, he was a political fool, realised too late what was going on in the "Reich", but was fascinated not by the man Hitler, but by the phenomenon Hitler and the sort of mass psychosis which was going on in Germany at the time, it seemed to fit his theories. He had an opportunstic streak, which let him play along with his Nazi collegues, at the same time he sincerely tried with some success to help his Jewish collegues as long as he could. It is a complex story, with lots of dark and some more positive sides to it and he acknowleged that he had failed in his later years. I feel as far as that.. and only that... is concerned,one has to differentiate between Jung the man and his findings. If I can use these, to understand and help people better, solid philophical base or not, I will use them gladly. But it is a different story of course, if I concern myself with Jung the man. A man may be a villain of whatever shade, but his ideas may change a small part world for better. It is not as easy as you suggest. |
Kill Jung!! Kill Jung!!
Or, maybe not... |
Rather not kill him ASA, we need him, since the righteous, the politically correct and the Philistines are generally in the majority. He certainly was none of that. |
|
Oh darn, detlof, and here I thought I was getting stoked for a good book burning! Went out back to the garage to get my rake and everything (mutter, mutter...)
Nrchy, I hear ya, though; that's why I questioned the "stability" of Jung's insights as a permanent structure. I think you have to understand, though, that like Jesse Helms, who likes to bandy about the Nazi word when convenient, fascism is used in many academic circles in reverse order: you accuse another of being a "Hitler", or a follower, or even an adherent of Nietsche, and suddenly the argument becomes that nothing you say has merit. Academics are, and rightfully so, sensitive to such associations that lead to censorship of ideas. I don't think you were doing that necessarily - I'm just havin' fun - but one has see how this can be misinterpreted (oh, I think detlof was just having fun too)
Besides, and trust me, detlof knows more about Nazism that you or I will ever know. |
It is with extreme sorrow that I take upon myself the heavy burden of imparting the irreversibly sad news that Dr Jung is no longer with us...
It has been rumoured that he was a great admirer of Dr Goebbels aka the Ogilvy of pre-war advertising (or is it the other way round?).
As Detlof & another (old) teacher of mine both noted, Asa's two facets (dark & light) coexist usually as sides of the same coin.
The old teacher maintained that this situation is a dynamic paradox and will ineluctibly lead to one of the two taking precedence over the other. In his opinion, the devil is frustration, i.e., the force of destruction/negation. The "angel" is the mark of sublimation, the force of creation.
It seems Jung was fascinated by the Nazi (or maybe Mr Goebbels') ability to manipulate and focus collective negative energy. Deus ex machina, and then some.
So many things "seem". I suspect that Detlof *knows* a thing or two -- from experience & otherwise..
p.s. Pls don't mistake my comment as a judgement on other posters. My knowledge on this & many other subjects, ex post & ante, is insufficient to judge the posters above -- but it is enough to acknowledge my ignorance! |
Gregm, nice stuff.
But, light/dark is still a dualistic perspective. If you see dark as separate from light - assume that that is the last truth - then that will be the truth for you (reality, again, is very accomodating that way...). Beyond ying/yang, light/dark, order/dis-order is Light; Shiva the creator/destroyer arises from the ground of what is. Don't get lost in manifestation (says Lao Tzu way, way before me). If you believe Light is separated into light/dark in its most fundamental nature, then you will invariably move towards the dark, because, that perspective's recoil from the Light is ITSELF the dark.
I liked your point that Jung might have been pulled towards a tacit collaboration with totalitarianism out of his "fascination" with the dark. I would suggest that this was his karmic path given his assumption of dark/light as the primary focus and assumptive perception. Then, given his trans-cognitive peak sight, then coupled with the alleged attachment to darkness (power of perception coupled with narcissism - remember the attachment to darkeness outside is reflective of attachment to darkness inside) AND the rise of the zenith of totalitarian nation-states as the collective swirling about him, is such a pulling attraction not understandable? He got pulled back towards the Matrix in his fascination for it. But it was a mirror...
What do you think, detlof? i'm way out there now, aren't I?!! Help, throw me a lifevest!! |
No, It is not a mirror... |
The light/dark is a mirror; that beneath it is not. |
|
Light is Dark,
Dark is Light,
If there is no Light, there is no Dark.
If there is no Dark, there is no Light.
They are not two, not one, not others, not different.
"beneath it is not"
Beneath is not. |
You don't need a lifevest Asa the way you swim and I see your point Greg. I doubt that CGJ liked Goebbels though.
Again: He was fascinated by Nazism, which he saw as a collective psychosis, with Hitler as a head-shaman, possessed.
This fascinated him....and yes he was a Nazi, like most of his social class in Europe in the thirties, because he was scared of Soviet Russia and the Commies and a possible revolution, which he hoped the Nazis would prevent and disappear in the process. ( A very Churchillian idea )
....and yes, though he helped Jews and had Jewish friends and pupils, Erich Neumann, Jolande Jacobi and Aniela Jaffé being the most notable amongst them, he was an antisemite, again like most of his kind and social class.......and if you want to bash him some more, he had affairs with patients,the most important, a beautiful Russian Jewess, (sic) highly intelligent, whom he cured, helped her to study medicine and dropped like a hot brick, when the liaison became known and he had to fear for his professional stature. The woman, Sabina Spielrain, whom the Nazis murdered together with her children, when they invaded Kiev,
became a well known psychiatrist of her own right, with interesting publications on the question of a death-drive, which Freud later developed without reference to her groundbreaking work. She was close to Freud, the latter incidentally protecting and covering up for Jung in this affair. She cherished Jung, inspite of his callous behaviour..she knew more about loving than he ever did, but then he knew a lot about "love".
There was a "fascination with the dark" in all of his generation in Europe in those years. A terrible, destructive unrest underneath the surface,the roots of which were more than enconomic, which, as you know, errupted first in 1914 and again in 1939. If you wonder about the Europeans as they are today, it is perhaps a good point to remember, that the best of them on all sides were wiped out in those two terrible wars. Nobody thinks about that, because it is an eleticist view and politically not correct, but it seems to show. But that is another story. If you want to know, what Jung was really fascinated by, it pays to my mind to read up on a dream of his as he was three years old, which he recounts in his "Dreams, Memories and Reflections". It is a pointer towards what he had to face and contend with in his life. A later outcome and a waymark of his struggle is his "Answer to Job" . A wild and highly emotional bit of writing. His torment, which you can feel hehind his words, holds my deep respect and compassion to this very day. Yes, light and dark is as a mirror we gaze in and as we gaze we see some of our entanglement. We have to, in order to perhaps grasp - through suffering only - its illusive powers. Jung was a great man, hence his struggle was so obvious as was his failure. He failed of course, like all of us, and Maya's web is closest, when we think it is gone for ever.........
Help me understand one thing though, why couldn't he take music, why did it shake him up so ? He clumsily called it "emotion pure", but then that is not music per se, that is us, what it can do to us. Obviously his thoughts, his words, his theories must have been a barrier against what is "beyond the mirror" ,which he could see through, sometimes step through, but had to guard against, lest it would destroy him. He once proudly said, that what had destroyed Nietzsche and Hoelderlin and many others, had also engulfed him, but did not break him.......but what do I know...
This all may be off topic, but I have the feeling, when we discuss this man, we use him as a substrate (not substitute) for our own lives, which is so closely linked with music and I am wondering what the role of music is in our lives in our attempt to see through mirrors...I dimly sense here a circle closing, yet alas "everyone is clear, only my mind is not".
6chac beautiful, how much of that are you able to live? (-: |
How much of who Jung was do you attribute to the prevelence of occult activity taking place around him? As you know the Nazi party was more of a religious movement than a political movement. I have come to believe that the fear of Socialism and Communism was more of a pretext than a true reason for many of the events which took place between 1919 and 1945. The real reasons were much more sinister. Did the OTO, Thelema society, and numerous other similar pagan groups influence him, or he them? Who made who???
At that point in history one did not gain acceptance and move up in the political party without involvment in religious aspect of the party. What was the basis for Jungs acceptance?
Being of German descent I have studied this abberation in history, but admittedly have not studied "the man" Jung. Any opinions or fact based evidence??? |
Fascinating point you make Nrchy. I think the fear of the "red tide"..and the yellow one at that, was a real fear in the upper classes, in the haute bougeoisie and the nobility. Not so in the lower middleclass,the "Kleinbürger" where the "Bewegung" first fed on. I think the occult activity was more marginal in numbers,however highly influential, certainly in the upper classes, amongst certain intellectuals and with strong roots in the middleclass as well. As far as Jung was concerned I have no evidence and also do not suppose that he was DIRECTLY influenced by any of the groups you mention. You must not forget that he was Swiss and they have generally a deep mistrust as regards ideas of such ilk. But there is no doubt, that " osmotically", these ideas did influence his thinking. Some of the language and ideas he used, could be interpreted as pointing to a more direct influence, but I doubt that they took hold deeply, it somehow does not fit with the rest. He would in a bout of Freud"hate", more than direct Antisemitism speak of a Germanic spirit and a Germanic psychology, words which sound despicable to our ears, but were the normal language of his times in the German speaking world and must be understood in this context. The study of races was thought to be scientific, as you know, and he was interested in any religious or pseudoreligious phenomena. He saw clearly that the Nazimovement had strong religious traits, which however he did not share, his interests lay elsewhere. The Nazis courted him, because he was not Jewish and antifreudian and belonged to the "Germanic race". This is where he got involved on a societal level within the German group, trying to gain acceptance for his ideas and importance on the one hand, on the other trying to help his Jewish colleagues. He never was part of the party or moved up in it. On the contrary, his ambivalence was soon not well taken in Berlin and he was looked upon with mistrust. In a sense he was never a REAL Nazi, anyone who maintains that either does not know the facts or has other reasons for maintaining that. But he was not an Antifascist either. His break with Freud traumatised him in more ways than one and he fought on every level to get recognition for his way of depthpsychology. This is the point where he failed to see sufficiently clear and made a pact with the Nazi-devil, if you will. He condemmned Freud's psychology as Jewish and raised his as Germanic, and that was the language the Nazis spoke and for that they loved him and that is the point where he fell.
He did not influence the pagan groups you mention, simply because they did not read him and also I doubt very strongly that he was influenced by them directly. However it is not to be discounted, that academically, outside of his medicine, he was influenced by the same sources as they were. Interestingly enough, they had no basic influence on the main body of his psychology, but he certainly used a language, especially in his younger years, which had an unsavoury closeness to the sinister "Blut und Boden" romanticism of these groups. But basically and perhaps that saved him, he never left the deeply protestant (i.e. sceptical )Christian gound, he was raised in, not in a confessional sense, but in his sense of questioning, searching and in his way of trying to understand the importance of Christ as a religeous phenomenon per se and its importance for the "individuation of mankind". |
Thanks Detlof, your mantra is my mantra. :-) When is it water is not waves? When is it waves is not water? Cheers! |
Detlof: fascinating, beautiful. Yes, the circle is closing (you felt that coming, uh?). I take back what I said: you are a teacher AND a healer. Who do you heal next? (its a mirror...)
6ch: you are being disingenuous, as detlof intuits. Let me explain why.
When we discuss the "what is" - the ground nature of "what is" - we are always limited in grasping it because language is dualistically-based (see the dualism reference above? How can I even say "ground" because that implies something not the ground and the Ground is all, nothing outside of "it" so where is the not-ground?). That's why I used Campbell's quote about twenty posts ago, namely, that "reality" always needs quotation marks around it because even the word does not encompass what it referring to; it only points (did you see the use of that quote above and a whole post on pointing?).
You said to me (in response to my using a pointing metaphor of a "mirror" to describe the relation of dark/light within, the self's belief in it thus creating it, and the dark/light it sees outside): "It is not a mirror".
As my response makes clear, I was talking about the light/dark, not its manifestation origination. You can always say that anything in language is not "it" and that would be correct, but the point is that we are talking in language. I could have just as easily said back to you "it" is not a not-mirror either. In other words, while you are trying to teach - and, yes, that is your presumption - you yourself are using words to tell people not to use words. When I say "beneath" you know that language binds me - the "it" has no location because it is ALL location, and, hence, the word "location" evaporates without its referential ground - so preying upon that - acting like you don't know what I am pointing to so you can be the teacher in your mind again - is disingenous. I could easily say to anything you say it is not-that, couldn't I?
If you answer, I hit you with bamboo across back. Go straight, don't know. Or, if you want to open your mouth and engage in dialogue accept that limitations of that dialogue - which, as I've told you, is also part of the "it" - and say your opinion WITH REASONS. Again, stop reading so much "zen".
On Jung: why did he not listen to music, or rather, why was he afraid of listening; afraid of the "purity"? Could it be that the same thing he recoiled from is what draws us (and then, draws us to talk together like this)? Music is "beauty" to many of us. Did Jung recoil from "beauty"? Did that action of his mind have anything to do with his "fascination" with "darkness"?
Let me propose an answer. Maybe not THE answer, but it may lead us somewhere.
As some of you know, I've taliked in these posts before about levels of listening, saying that when you first sit down you listen with your thinking mind that you bring from day-to-day life. This thinking mind controls reality - or so the mind assumes - through its objectifying (the basis of comparing in Time mentioned above, ie comparative rationality, hypothetico-deductive cognition). This results in "seeing" sound as an object and trying to control that sight by making sound sources into objects. Hence the reliance on "accuracy, detail" etc to bound sound into objects more. But as the listener falls deeper into the music - its meaning of "purity" - the thinking mind fades and "lets go" over control of the experience. Hence, the word "falling into the music" to describe the loss of control. But is it a loss, because isn't "beauty" gained in ever-more deepening ways? Could it be that it is only an assumption of loss from the perspective of the thinking mind that wishes to control? If the thinking mind's need to control emanates from the need to survive (fear of not-surviving - the "darkness"), the isn't falling into the music a "letting go" of that thinking mind that merely wishes to keep thinking?
With Jung, was he afraid to fall into the music because he "thought" that his loss of control would bring on the "darkness", act as its further catalyst? And, in seeing the "purity" of music - what it might do to his idea of himself, his thinking mind - wasn't he mistaking the "beauty" of music for a presumed "darkness", while that darkness was, all along, only his fear of falling into the music itself? Was the "darkness" created by his assumption that it existed?
As I drift into the music, letting my thinking mind fade ints its need to assert, the emotions are left; released of cognition, the emotions stand in relief (hence, emotionally-based language always used to describe this state). They become diffuse, fluid in that release, and wec experience music in yet another way, from another perceptive perspective.
Did Jung mistake the "beauty" of music for "darkness" in his fear of going their? Was the "darkness" only his fear of letting go itself? |
Nate, the Thule Society, Madame Blavatsky, and the Theosophical Society, among others had great influence on Hitler in his early days. The swastika symbol was suggested by Hitler's dentist, who was a Thule Society member and was derived from a Tibetan symbol representing "order in the universe". The reversal of this symbol into the Nazi swastika symbolized "the bringing of chaos". It is interesting that on Madame Blavatsky's crest, known as the Blavatsky Brooch, there is both the Nazi swastika, and the star of David appearing on the same crest. As well as a serpent, and a kings crown. This occultic crest and its owner were present in the mid to late 1800's, and were the founders of the Theosophical Society, and other occultic offshoots, claiming to know the "hidden knowledge" that intrigued Hitler. This is even alluded to in the "Indiana Jones" movie, where they were searching for the arc of the Covenant, and other ancient power relics. The Theosophists continued with Alistair Crowley, and Rudolf Steiner, et al, who started occultic movements based on Mme. Blavatsky's work which continue to this day. The genocide and "cleansing" ideas which later marked the Nazi regime, were introduced by some of these occultists. This is why I mention the interesting point that the Nazi swastika AND the Star of David appeared together on the Blavatsky Brooch. Blavatsky died in the 1880's. But the Theosophical Society continued. All of this happening long before Hitler ever came to power. Many feel that Hitler was funded by these groups and they controlled him. He may have been a puppet for some shadowy groups which still exist, and may still be highly influential today. |
Cheers! to you too, 6ch....:0) |
No Asa, you own me 3 cents. Otherwise, I will push it to a 500 posts thread. ;-) |
|
Said above > As you know the Nazi party was more of a religious movement than a political movement.
All politics is religion
. or at least it has been up until now. Hitler relied, after all, on what were (and still are) primarily Christian prejudices and symbols (even as he disavowed them). The separation of church and state has been fought for here in the states for a short two centuries but anyone who follows this administration (Ashcroft) certainly understands that the two are still closely tied together. One nation under God
.ect. The oh so easy separation of the two realms would have made Jung smile. (The one denied is the one in control.) In most of the rest of the world it is even more so. Our experiment with secular democracy is so short and fragile.
>Is Jung influenced by the occult ?
Of course!! Read his take on alchemy. It is not that he is right or wrong. (Mark will surely lecture on the mistaken assumptions underlying the duality of such an approach.) It is simply so amazing and fantastic a production!
IMHO there are few easy answers with Jung. I am going to say difficult things in very little space so you experts (Detlof) please excuse my laymans simplifications and over generalizations.
He wrote his dissertation for his medical degree, On the Psychology and Pathology of So-called Occult Phenomena, about his 15 year old cousin, Helene Prieswerk, who claimed to be a medium. She claimed to be controlled by a variety of spirits. He attributed it to dissociation-multiple personalities. He was not so easily taken in.
Somewhat ironically, one of the more far fetched ideas (to modern western ears), synchronicity (you know.. the Sting Album
the idea that cause and effect are not so obvious and events are related in not so common sense ways), which sounds mystical-occultist to modern ears, was based on his collaboration with Wolfgang Pauli, a physicist. Many of his ideas came together during the second decade of this century. The first and second decades were very productive in completely overturning the rather mechanistic Newtonian view of the physical world. In a way the common-sense understanding of reality became non-sense at the cutting edge of hard science. I think Jung was influenced by this and believed that psychology would follow a similar path. At least he was certainly not afraid to think about and explore such things.
He was deeply interested in what we term the occult because he believed that western thought had overvalued thinking and undervalued its emotional/unconscious roots. In a simplified sense he believed certain aspects of thought became habitual and dominant and that without some balance troubles would follow. To almost any western reader he is going to seem to leave the known-plotted-intellectualized world far behind. Again, the second decade of the 20th century saw a war by civilized-scientific western Europe that, to say the least, showed the underbelly of the dreams of reason. He, in fact, believed he envisioned the war. Like him or not, his writing for about a half dozen years after 1913 , after his break with Freud as Detlof points out, and in a state of mind that would have put most of us in an asylum is, as they say, stranger than fiction
. and richer too.
This is not to excuse his obvious shortcomings. He was a man. His insights were great and his mistakes were great too. Hindsight is 20-20. Thomas Jefferson banged his negress slave half step-sister. The reverend M.L. King was rather prolific too. Is this cause for concern? Well
yes. Does it completely undermine their insight and lifes work? I dont think so (another thread?). One of Jungs better known ideas is that of the shadow and he certainly had his own
.but to expect too much from those who walk here is adolescent folly. To expect nothing is fatalistic. But where to draw the line?
Least we forget as we judge Jung. The topic of this thread is a set of cables costing more than the annual gross family income of about half the folks on the planet who are hungry (slowly starving) as we speak. Of course, we have a political/economic ideology that justifies our excesses. Actually, it makes a Virtue of them (from necessity of course). I wonder what they will think of us 100 years from now. Please understand that I include myself in the last comment. I am not aiming it at anyone else... least of all you Narchy. I spend enough on vinyl to feed a small village.
If Jung failed somehow maybe I like him more for it. Compared to most of us he did not take the easy way. He struggled with it and for that I like him.
Sincerely
I remain, |
oh 6ch, and here I thought you got it: whack!! The sound of one hand clapping across with bamboo. :o)
3 cents, 500 posts, 123, 555678, 54.32? What is your Face?
:0) 3 :0) 500 :0) 123.......
On the Jung guys, the historical stuff, really enjoying it and learning some things too. Thanks for your efforts.
Clueless, our "experiement in secular democracy". Uh, I didn't know we'd had one yet...The "overturning" of the "Newtonian Mechanistic world". Uh, when did that happen? Yes, Jung confronted his "darkness" in many ways, and many ways not. What we need to see about Jung is that he saw deep into his own mind and, conversely, the collective. As you go deeper, the "darkeness" of, what Tibetans call, "difilements" increases. You have more "centered" consciousness in which to encounter that darkness (instinctual self) as it becomes darker. In this way, the "what is" - being so accommodating as it were - enables just enough center to handle each new way of darkness, Some waves Jung stood before, some he turned away from. When he stood - letting the darkness blow through him like wind - he saw things to tell us about; when he turned away, he rejoined the world of other-against-other. Like the existentialists, he looked "below" (ok, 6ch?) the thinking mind, seeing that he/we are something more, saw the archetypes, but did not see below them. Intuited his "ground", but ultimately defaulted to light/dark. This is the Path we all take, whether we know it or not. Jung injected into the collective mind a catalyst of thought based upon his visions - that karmic energy is still here in this moving thread.... |
There are many ways to cut a chicken, bro. I wrote it not only for you, but for others, too! ;-) |
said above> Clueless, our "experiment in secular democracy". Uh, I didn't know we'd had one yet...
Uh
.I was answering Narchys post where he said the Nazi movement was more religion than politics. My point was that they are not separate and that, to the extent they are, it is a fragile experiment. The dates would be 1776-89. If you see no significance that is up to you.
said above> The "overturning" of the "Newtonian Mechanistic world". Uh, when did that happen?
Uh
Anyone remotely familiar with physics would place it at least by 1905 to 1916 (approx) at the latest. Einsteins two papers on relativity.
Uh...I am really tired of the hostility here and sign off. Uh...There are better things to do.
Uh...Good luck to all.
Uh...Adieu,
|
True Asa, the karmic energy is still here. Jung was one of us and he saw more than the most of us and he failed like all of us, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty he stood his ground like only few of us.
True Clueless, I find little fault with your synopsis. You are knowlegeable and place your accents well. Two points only: It is, thanks to Jung, that much which was called occult, nowadays has become common knowlege about the psyche-mind. Occult is a silly term to my mind and just as sterile as the mainstream of knowlege, which by naming it thus, ostracises it and by doing this, hides its inability to understand and deal with it. I don't like the term, because it places barriers within the mind. I find my own stupidity barrier enough and I don't need more, thankyou.
Alchemy is only occult to the beholder who does not see beyond the veil. Case in point, perhaps. Jung was fascinated by the Alchemists, because he saw parallels between their imagery and symbolism and that of his patients. The Alchemists, not knowing in terms of modern science what was going on within their bulbs and ovens, saw that their prime matter, they were working on, was transforming in appearance and substance and described this in a symbolism which can find its exact counterpart in dreams, visions, phanstasies of modern man, when he is undergoing change, is growing, transforming. Why thus: The anwser is very simple. To the Alchemists, the matter in their retorts was like a Rorschach test and they "projected". What they projected were transformative symbols, which to Jung lie dormant in our psyche and which come to life during our spiritual, intellectual and biological growing pains,when we should develop but yet do not quite know how. Jung went on to show, that quite a number of alchemists started to realise, that they projected. That it was they who underwent change and the symbolism, which popped up in their minds, concerned them just as much as the matter, they were observing. Sort of a Heisenbergian forerunner no?! Well there are a few Alchemists like Maier, or Lampspring, who in their language and symbolism in the 17th century described exact stages of the individuation process with a detailed knowlege about its steps and implications, which yet have to be reached by the mainstream of modern psychology.It was they, who realised, that the transformation, which took place, was in them as well as in the matter , they were observing. Fascinating,no?! It was Jung who gave us a key to its understanding and if you are, like me, familiar with the dreams and phantasies of modern man, you'd be amazed how to the point and knowledgeable those "occultists" were. To cut a long story short: What we call irrational probably only shows the boundaries of our rationality and unveils us as shortsighted and stupid.
I feel, since Jung and his occupation with the "occult", we have the chance to be a little less stupid about our ture reality. The East has been always and since centuries far more knowledgeabe about this. As far as the knowlege of ourselves is concerend, here, we in the West are underdeveloped country and in need of aid. Our pszchology basically is ridiculous in its blindness for our transcendent needs and in its obsession with measurements. What we manage to measure and statistically prove generally boils down to what every child knows anyway. Jung has closed the gap for us quite considerably by using the modalities of western thought. He is one of us, not an imported Guru. Quite an achievement, in the light of which his failings don't really interest me much. rather, like Clueless, I like him more for it. |
Clueless, please stay, ASA is not hostile, he's probing you. He needs partners, strong partners to talk to, he's lonely and those he chides, he respects and loves. Don't take it personally. He wants to draw you out, because he needs more of you. So do I by the way. Please stay with us. |
Asa, as to Jung and music. I don't know. He probably needed words and concepts, structures to battle with the other side. Words to him were perhaps like the stones and earth and rubble, they use in Holland to capture back land from the ocean. He tried to put in the language of Western science of his time, what the East had known for centuries. He was not afraid to step into the realm of the "mothers" to paraphrase Goethe's Faust, he could let go completely, but that what he brought from beyond he hammered and forged into words and concepts. He was a Westerner and he refused to be anything else, although he was wide open for, an highly knowlegeable about the East.
At the same time, he was not an intellectual. You cannot say that he did not practice what he preached. What he drew as knowlege came from his very life, it was not bland thought..Foucoult comes to mind here, brilliant as it may be.... Music silences words, especially if it strikes deep. He was wide open, so he needed his mind, not to predate, but in this case to protect and hold safe. Perhaps it was a simple as that. Food for thought, not more. |
Clueless!! I'm sorry, I should have put a smiley face with it because that was how I meant it; the "uh's" weren't meant to be patronizing. I enjoyed your post VERY much. I've needled you in the past, I forgot, and should have clarified my tone better, somehow.
Actually, we look at things the same pretty much, historically speaking. My only point was that the experiment in democracy, much less secularized democracy, has hardly been done at all. I don't see that we are living in a democracy, not the way we define it. We live in a nation-state effectively controlled by a transitory corporate aristocracy. I don't think a true democracy would ever operate as its primary assumption infinite greed. I'm not saying you believe this strong, but thought I was teeing one up for you.
On Newtonian. Yea, I agree, and probably only 10% of the population gets it this way. Unfortunately, that is not where the center of gravity, so to speak, of western culture exists - how it behaves and the assumptions thatunderly that behavior - both historically and evolutionarily. Yes, Einstein, Heisenberg, etc. showed us different ways to see the world of matter and energy, but the meaning of those views have not seeped very far into the collective mind, at least not yet. Scientific materialism - with its power to change matter and give ever-changing products - is in an integral dynamic with capitalism, each supporting the other, each supporting the assumptions of the other, notwithstanding Einstein's discoveries that there are other ways to look at reality beyond Galileo's machine, or Descartes method. Capitalism is just fine with Newtonian abilities to produce technology; it doesn't need Einsteinian space/time paradoxes or quantum energy theories (so far...) to get its people to want the next product-thing. We were probably talking about different levels of seeing this; one whether Einstein's ideas mean the eventual "overturning" of Cartesianism, and the other saying that that hasn't happened yet for the collective western mind. BTW, I don't think it will be "overturned", but eventually, integrated. What is overturned is not the knowledge itself, but people's desire to not see more - which is something I talked about eatlier.
Again, my apologies for not being more clear. I really enjoyed what you had to say. |
Clueless!! I'm sorry, really, I should have put a smiley face with it because that was how I meant it; the "uh's" weren't meant to be patronizing. I enjoyed your post VERY much. I've needled you in the past, I forgot, and should have clarified my tone better, somehow.
Actually, we look at things the same pretty much, historically speaking. My only point was that the experiment in democracy, much less secularized democracy, has hardly been done at all. I don't see that we are living in a democracy, not the way we define it. We live in a nation-state effectively controlled by a transitory corporate aristocracy. I don't think a true democracy would ever operate as its primary assumption infinite greed. I'm not saying you believe this strong, but thought I was teeing one up for you.
On Newtonian. Yea, I agree, and probably only 10% of the population gets it this way. Unfortunately, that is not where the center of gravity, so to speak, of western culture exists - how it behaves and the assumptions thatunderly that behavior - both historically and evolutionarily. Yes, Einstein, Heisenberg, etc. showed us different ways to see the world of matter and energy, but the meaning of those views have not seeped very far into the collective mind, at least not yet. Scientific materialism - with its power to change matter and give ever-changing products - is in an integral dynamic with capitalism, each supporting the other, each supporting the assumptions of the other, notwithstanding Einstein's discoveries that there are other ways to look at reality beyond Galileo's machine, or Descartes method. Capitalism is just fine with Newtonian abilities to produce technology; it doesn't need Einsteinian space/time paradoxes or quantum energy theories (so far...) to get its people to want the next product-thing. We were probably talking about different levels of seeing this; one whether Einstein's ideas mean the eventual "overturning" of Cartesianism, and the other saying that that hasn't happened yet for the collective western mind. BTW, I don't think it will be "overturned", but eventually, integrated. What is overturned is not the knowledge itself, but people's desire to not see more - which is something I talked about eatlier.
Again, my apologies for not being more clear. I really enjoyed what you had to say. |
Detlof: thank you for sharing your knowledge on Jung. I've enjoyed it very very much. I don't know that much about him, but thought if I kept at it long enough something would get going; or, form from that karmic energy. Very happy; learned much!! Heard smart people talk about meaning, hey, that makes me feel good. Pretty basic, really.
And, yes, clueless, the ideas aren't important, but the comaraderie is. Detlof pegs me good. I only challenge, never attack, inauthenticity. Dislodge it, so to speak. That said, I never thought you were being inauthentic in what you said just now. The opposite actually. So even though we may disagree now and again in ideas, its "good" nonetheless.
Clueless, you are a part of that/this karmic energy. Don't you know, that's why we are all here? |
