The philosophy surrounding the science, and thus the science itself.
Jesus, you're dumb.
Also, it's spelled "stumped".
Your lack of creativity is getting boring. Quit using Eulogy's tactics and think up one of your own, maybe?
The next time I need an editor for my internet writing I will be sure to contact you, thanks for the tips!
Oh and also, "the philosophy surrounding the science, and thus the science itself" tells me nothing about your knowledge of Jung, in fact your hallmark responses are becoming very clear that you really don't have a clue. YO
Jung wars! Seriously though talking about psychology and philosophy is my bread and butter, and I would enjoy nothing more then to have a conversation on such topics. In fact I don't wish you "enlighten" you on any such topics, as much as I would enjoy knowing your perspective on Jung and his theories. Have you heard of Ken Wilber? William James? Love em all!
So in an attempt to give my own perspective of Jung's theories I will start with a quote from a summary of the book “Modern Man in Search of a Soul” page 202 (while giving a detailed description to the meaning of the Modern Man he proclaims); “As soon as he has outgrown whatever local form of religion he was born to-as soon as this religion can no longer embrace his life in all its fullness-then the psyche becomes something in its own right which cannot be dealt with by the measure of the Church alone. It is for this reason that we of today have a psychology founded on experience, and not upon article of faith or the postulates of any philosophical system.”
Jung is the forefather to the discovery of the inner experience in Western society, giving credit to the construct of perspectives formed and inherited, beyond it being just a byproduct of adolescent sexually driven misinterpretations, the popular Freudian theory at the time. Jung’s belief in the Collective Unconscious has been the main topic at which he is discredited by scientific society, being called metaphysical, which held many consequences for men of his time. The construct of a theory that couldn’t be reduced and repeated for the purpose of science cut his theories in half. Experience can’t be proved by science and how one interprets that experience comes from their ability to be conscious in their decisions. Jung coins consciousness as the ability to be present “the man of the immediate present,” the Modern Man is the antithesis of Jung’s theories paving a world of malleable reality, beyond all expectations life with certainty “Indeed, he is completely modern only when he has come to the very edge of the world, leaving behind him all that has been discarded and outgrown, and acknowledging that he stands before a void of which all things may grow.”
My swiss cheese definition, I could go into great detail about how his main theory, the Collective Unconscious, was the half that went under the title of metaphysical and why. Experience is what keeps Jung's theories alive even to this day, people who have experienced what Jung calls the Collective Unconscious know its validity, there's no dispute for those who have been down the rabbit hole.
__________________ It's that simple!
Last edited by RachJacob; 03-07-2009 at 03:29 PM..
The collective unconscious was nothing but a series of archetypes that are built into our perceptions by instinct you twat. Anyone who suggests it's something metaphysical either doesn't know what they're talking about or read a bastardized transliteration of Jung's theories.
So you wish to deny that the collective unconscious was considered metaphysical during its earliest conception? I could quote Jung himself who admits the relativities of his theories to those of a metaphysical nature.
It would seem your incessant desire to prove me wrong is starting to discredit your criticism.
So you gave me the definition of the collective unconscious, but that still doesn't tell me what you know about Jung?
Earliest conception does not equal final thesis, moron.
Right, and I agree with your opinion on the topic, but you can't ignore the fact that by being titled metaphysical from its conception didn't have an adverse affect. Unfortunately to this day the association of any sort of existential nature is still very prevalent.
My in-law's life manual is the Christian bible, and any mention of Jung stirs up chaos, or the silent treatment. The very real fact is that Jung in the eyes of many people still has an unknown "sin" association to his theories. How do you relate Jung to someone like that? With your opinions... doesn't work!
__________________ It's that simple!
Last edited by RachJacob; 03-09-2009 at 06:49 AM..
A hardcore christian like that has the same reaction to anything that isn't the bible or a well-known christian evangelist. I had a friend who's mom thought video games were sinful. Does that mean my Xbox is a metaphysical entity capable of helping me change myself into into my ideal self? No, it does not. Your entire argument is a sharpshooter fallacy and thus bunk. Nothing you have to say is of any value.
Of no value enough to get you to continue to respond?
Your example has no association to this discussion, do your homework, what made your friend’s mom think video games were sinful? Perhaps the violence associated to most video games? Or, the obvious waste of time?
Like I said, I agree with you, coming from one person to another who has obviously had experiences with Jung's theories. Which is exactly my point his theories have to be experienced, so the challenge becomes how do you explain his theories to people who stigmatize the theory before the experience? As I agree, again, that most "hardcore Christians" have a clear filter in which they take in information, but again so does everyone, so to negate something that seems very real to them only gives them more reason to believe in their stereo type.
Listen, a discussion will always go in circles as long as each member is arguing two different facts, and for someone who calls psychology a science you are very abstract in this discussion, arguing opinions over facts will always be a losing battle. When you are only willing to see your side of the spectrum only makes you the ignorant one.
__________________ It's that simple!
Last edited by RachJacob; 03-09-2009 at 08:39 AM..
The vocals off Undertow are definitely the most naked and daring I've heard off a Tool album. Maynard really wasn't holding back what was on his mind and thats why this Tool album holds a torch none of the others can claim. Take the song 4 degrees for example, do you know any other band who can make a song about anal sex be so honest and twisted and anything but comical? I think this album has some of the best lyrics just because Maynard didn't give a shit and he wasn't the big deal he was when he was writing songs for their later albums, so I'm sure that had something to do with the honesty and frustrations found in Opiate and Undertow.
__________________ "Religion is the opium of the masses" -Karl Marx