Carl Jung's Secret Life: "The "Aryan Christ" - something rotten in Jungian psychology?
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
John G
The Living Force
Well considering my avatar relates Jung's typology to Gurdjieff's Enneagram and also relates to how I found Ark's math (it's the root vector polyhedron for the conformal group), I'm biased in this area. Gurdjieff's cosmology, Jung's collective unconscious, and Leary's (who the Cs said had a nice 5th density transition and whose circumplex also relates to my avatar) expanded consciousness; as hyperdimensionally related as they may seem to be, never get into the important hyperdimensional aspects the way Zoroaster did. Why is that? If there is 4D STS blockage of some kind for some popular researchers, it still seems to have failed a bit for these three aka I got here via them and Ark's work anyways.
I listened to one of his dream work books some years back, but couldn't go that far into it, although when I thought at that time: "It is from Carl Jung and it must be a very important book". The question is, why he got so famous when other and much better psychologists like Dabrowski did not. Was it his connection to the CIA and that they promoted him on some or many levels? Was is calculated by the CIA or 4D influences? Because Jung is like the elephant in a psychology room and you just cannot miss him, since he is so big and colourful.
I'm looking forward to hear more about the recent book and the developments into his work under the new light and it would be good to know, what parts of his work are still countable.
I'm looking forward to hear more about the recent book and the developments into his work under the new light and it would be good to know, what parts of his work are still countable.
Eulenspiegel
Jedi Master
Interesting. I also was fed the idea that Jung was the good guy, whereas Freud was the guy who projected his own issues on humanity and declared that a science.
To think that these guys really are the two most influential psychologists of the 20th century. Jesus...
To think that these guys really are the two most influential psychologists of the 20th century. Jesus...
Interesting what you say, Gaby. I just started to read a book by him some years ago, Man In search of soul, and I forget the book in a cafeteria. It is the only book in my life that I lost in some place. But I found it very difficult to understand. I read some books by Hillmann, that is a Jungian, and I like him very much, I can understand what I am reading!
I hear some place that Jung was in the Nazi esoteric stuff. Implying he was no what we think he was, but that he was in the dark side.
Interesting thread.... for sake of argument if we assume that his ideas about archetypes are made-up nonsense at best or straight up STS meddling at worst, does that discredit the work of folks like Joseph Campbell, Clarissa Pinkola Estés (Women Who Run with the Wolves) and Jordan Peterson?
BlackCartouche
Jedi Master
Like Pashalis, I was never attracted to Jung either. My mother was into him though, and she would always see Jungian concepts and philosophy parallels in Star Trek Next Generation series (which she loved). I thought was interesting - as i couldnt really get into Star Trek either which is odd because I would usually lap up sci fi when I was a young lad, and Star Trek Next Gen was pretty slick for its time.
Can't wait!
Well Peterson is really basing a lot of his thinking on mythology and how the same basic stories with the same elements have been told over and over going way back. So I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
I mean I didn't see this coming with Jung either. Not that I've read any of his works. But anyone who has had such an influence on so many, perhaps we should get in the habit of taking a closer look at, given what we 'know' about hyperdimensional influences?
Yeah I noticed that as well. Also I know very little of Jung. Though I may have caught a glimpse (by Alan Watts), long ago.
I was thinking on the same terms, the same question about JBP as he seems to hold Jung in a very high regard but he also mentions Freud and Dostoyevsky, and Milton and the Bible and so on... so, as I see it, Jung is one of his influences, a large one... but not the only one.
He also seems to have a completely different set of “fruits” of his life to show for than Jung did. I mean, one could say that Jung was an influential author, but he was an apparently reprehensible human being. Peterson seems to be rather influential without having sacrificed his family in the process... or at least it seems that his relationship with them is very good.
So there’s perhaps some utility to some of the ideas brought forth by Jung.. maybe not all of them. Or maybe not even those brought forth by him but by jungian psychologist after him? I remember this book “unholy hungers” which I found quite useful and it was written by a jungian psychologist for instance.
It seems this happens to human beings and it’s only great souls who are capable of living the principles the spout to the world. I remember the discussion of Gurdjieff and his behavior, the case with Carlos Castaneda is another one of those, and now Jung.
Exactly. And the problem with all of them is that they are not considering the reality of hyperdimensions and denizens of same, densities, etc. Also, many myths began pretty much as Mike Baillie and Victor Clube describe them: as a result of cometary disasters. Anybody, be they historian, archaeologist, paleontologist, mythologist, psychologist, religious scholar, or whatnot, who does NOT take these two PRIMARY FACTORS into account, are rendered helpless at worst to fully understand and explain their material. Their explanations may approach something like a shadow of the reality - through a glass darkly - but they will never really get close enough to it to call it more than an approximation of truth.
I'm planning to read Jung's http://www.serenitystreetnews.com/H...000/Carl Jung - Psychology and The Occult.pdf before I label someone psychopath and maniac (again). But I really have a cousin who is thankfully unsuccessful rapist, (he was in prison for an attempt of murder and got out) and he I remember, he was killing a innocent harmless snake when he was a teenager, I was a small kid around 5 and thought the snake is evil and dangerous like he told me and sent me for a rock. I didn't brought a rock. I heard he really did it when I got to my aunt, she started yelling at him what will neighbours say. Sorry for the digression, and for writing my unpleasent memory- I have no idea what kind of nasty karma sent me into such a family. My attempt was not to make you feel bad.
I'm notacing the pattern that there are people who have libido as is said a life force and I don't think that's a good thing. I consider spirit a life force. What I noticed is that people who suffered because of the pathology of their loved ones were not getting better like the treatment wasn't ment for them but for the psychopaths to free themselves or to study normal people like I think my cousin was doing, he was too old to hang out with me. I was reading this Useful People - The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government
Thank you for the links. Laura is onto something big, again
I'm notacing the pattern that there are people who have libido as is said a life force and I don't think that's a good thing. I consider spirit a life force. What I noticed is that people who suffered because of the pathology of their loved ones were not getting better like the treatment wasn't ment for them but for the psychopaths to free themselves or to study normal people like I think my cousin was doing, he was too old to hang out with me. I was reading this Useful People - The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government
Thank you for the links. Laura is onto something big, again
I'm fond of Jung's work, but to be honest, I only read his biography under the title of "Memories, Dreams and Reflections", wrote by himself, which obviously means he might have left plenty of the bad stuff behind and maybe romanticized some of it. I liked it very much though, as a biography of one person that had a very rich internal life and reflected quite a lot about the meaning of life and other questions about humanity. Besides that, much of what I know from Jung comes from other authors who took his work and my aunt who is a Jungian psychologist.
I once took a course on Jungian psychology too, and even though some of the concepts seem useful to me, I always thought that their approach is a bit too oriented towards imagination and even fantasy, which can end in creating more narratives to "explain" our behaviour rather than bring actual understanding and action. So a little bit can come handy, yet too much can be detrimental. Jung studied a lot about alchemy and other ancient traditions, so maybe, just as it happens with others, we can find some bits of truths in his work because they contain some portions of knowledge coming from other works...
Regarding the Hyperdimensional aspect, for me is totally yes, if you take for granted all of what he says, it will deviate you from that reality. I think he would say the UFO phenomena is the modern myth and that every paranormal/hyperdimensional phenomena is just part of that "symbolic reality"... not a reality in and on itself, so to say. But for me, some part of his work was very valuable taking away that particular fact. All of what we usually refer to the as the theory of personality based on the 5 basic traits and sub-traits has developed from his work, for example. And as Approaching Infinity said, when I read his own words, when he talked about libido, it was more about a psychic energy that was similar to "life energy" and manifested only partly through sex. He actually hated the fact that Freud was obsessed with sex and parted ways with him because of that. According to some biographers, Otto was sent to Jung by Freud, by the way... but I might have to check that again.
Regarding Christianity, I have no evidence of him hating or wanting to destroy it. From what I read so far, his own words, I get the sense he was actually very fond of Christianity. But maybe it's just my interpretation.
Now, as with Peterson, Gurdjieff and all the others, we need to be careful not to put them in a pedestal where we believe that they have the whole banana.
I'm thinking that, as was the case with Gurdjieff, some of us might also project what we know on the ideas presented by Jung and others... Like, maybe he actually didn't mean what we think he meant because we fill in the blanks, so to say, with our understanding of reality.
I once took a course on Jungian psychology too, and even though some of the concepts seem useful to me, I always thought that their approach is a bit too oriented towards imagination and even fantasy, which can end in creating more narratives to "explain" our behaviour rather than bring actual understanding and action. So a little bit can come handy, yet too much can be detrimental. Jung studied a lot about alchemy and other ancient traditions, so maybe, just as it happens with others, we can find some bits of truths in his work because they contain some portions of knowledge coming from other works...
Regarding the Hyperdimensional aspect, for me is totally yes, if you take for granted all of what he says, it will deviate you from that reality. I think he would say the UFO phenomena is the modern myth and that every paranormal/hyperdimensional phenomena is just part of that "symbolic reality"... not a reality in and on itself, so to say. But for me, some part of his work was very valuable taking away that particular fact. All of what we usually refer to the as the theory of personality based on the 5 basic traits and sub-traits has developed from his work, for example. And as Approaching Infinity said, when I read his own words, when he talked about libido, it was more about a psychic energy that was similar to "life energy" and manifested only partly through sex. He actually hated the fact that Freud was obsessed with sex and parted ways with him because of that. According to some biographers, Otto was sent to Jung by Freud, by the way... but I might have to check that again.
Regarding Christianity, I have no evidence of him hating or wanting to destroy it. From what I read so far, his own words, I get the sense he was actually very fond of Christianity. But maybe it's just my interpretation.
Now, as with Peterson, Gurdjieff and all the others, we need to be careful not to put them in a pedestal where we believe that they have the whole banana.
I'm thinking that, as was the case with Gurdjieff, some of us might also project what we know on the ideas presented by Jung and others... Like, maybe he actually didn't mean what we think he meant because we fill in the blanks, so to say, with our understanding of reality.
Calling "libido" a "life force" or a "god" is true enough from a pragmatic perspective, IMO. Sex has been ruling plants, animals, and humans since the beginning of time, for the purposes of reproduction of corporeal life. I think this is what Mouravieff described as the Absolute III -- the 'god' of this world, unless and until individuals choose to align oneself with one step higher: the Absolute II.
Whenever we witness that the misuse of that kind of energy is not just detrimental, but in some cases catastrophic, we may conclude that it is a very, very powerful force, and that greatest care has to be exerted in dealing with it. A proper, truthful education about this force, early in life, would certainly help -- including the description of possible alternatives, which should be as fundamental and viable.
Whenever we witness that the misuse of that kind of energy is not just detrimental, but in some cases catastrophic, we may conclude that it is a very, very powerful force, and that greatest care has to be exerted in dealing with it. A proper, truthful education about this force, early in life, would certainly help -- including the description of possible alternatives, which should be as fundamental and viable.
Well, apparently, Jung did not actually write MDR.
Well, the one who was creating the most narratives appears to have been Jung and he taught his followers to do it to within a certain framework.
The story is not quite that simple re: Otto. You'll need to read this book to get the historical context.
And yes, I think there are some very useful things in Jung because, after all, he was experiencing and describing hyperdimensional realities even if he didn't realize that was what it was. It's like everything, there is some good there because you have to wrap lies in truth to get others to swallow them.
As I go further in the book, I think that Noll is a bit TOO hypercritical in some ways and doesn't understand a lot. But then, with his attitude toward the paranormal, what does one expect? I sure hope that all of you interested in the topic will read the book and give your take on it.
Best read this book; it contains stuff you won't find in any "Jung family approved" text.
Exactly. And the historical data in this book is invaluable. But, as I said, Noll has his own point of view and doesn't understand some things and Jung wasn't entirely wrong about some things.
That's for sure. Getting the historical context put together as Noll does here is very helpful.
