Jung visionary or psychologically damaged?

[Demosthenes]

Well done, you've come up with the Theory of Everything. Just the detail to work out now. Detail Einstein wasted the last years of his life on, and which he never resolved. Good luck.

It's not my theory of everything, it's a really quite uncontroversial point that everything very large is made out of things that are very small. As far as I know, no-one disagrees with it, Do you?

 

[elbows]

We seek give meaning to patterns our brain recognizes. Whether that meaning has any reality in the wider world does not seem to matter, and I shall likely never know for certain, but if it has meaning to your brain then that in itself is enough to make it valid on at least one level.

 

[danny la rouge]

It's not my theory of everything, it's a really quite uncontroversial point that everything very large is made out of things that are very small. As far as I know, no-one disagrees with it, Do you?

Of course I don't disagree. But you've missed my point entirely, which suggests you may not be as conversant with physics as you thought you were when you said I was "uninformed and ignorant".

The supposed Theory of Everything is the long sought-after theory which some hope will integrate the physics of the very very small with the physics of the big. Einstein was one who hoped to achieve it. The fact remains, however, that the two sets - primarily general relativity and quantum physics - do not integrate.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Just returning to an earlier point, it would seem that Jung and Laing are one of a small handfull of psychotherapists who explicitly dealt with psychosis and schizophrenic patients.

 

[Demosthenes]

The supposed Theory of Everything is the long sought-after theory which some hope will integrate the physics of the very very small with the physics of the big. Einstein was one who hoped to achieve it. The fact remains, however, that the two sets - primarily general relativity and quantum physics - do not integrate.

Is it really, you don't say, thankyou so much for telling me, I'd never heard that before.

Why exactly do you think it's relevant to this discussion. I don't think it is at all.

I think you're confusing two issues. The current theories of the very small don't integrate with the current theories of the very large.

However the current reality of the very large obviously does integrate with the reality of the very small, as they're one and the same thing.

This being so, and given the experimental proofs of the real world effects of bell's theorem, it is to be expected that synchronicities occur above chance level

Whether this has any significance is a matter of personal opinion, I suppose, but, given the unbelievable oddness of a universe which is physically set up for synchronicity, (almost as if it were designed that way)- I think it would be surprising if it doesn't.

 

[danny la rouge]

Is it really, you don't say, thankyou so much for telling me, I'd never heard that before.

I was merely replying to your post. I assumed from the way it was worded that you didn't know. My apologies if you did.

However, the reason I bring it up is that you're apparently taking Bell's theorem - a theorem pertaining to the sub-particular world - and attempting to apply it to the super-particular world. I submit that it is therefore relevant for me to point out that this is not an application physics could sustain.

I'm well aware, of course, that big things are composed of very very small things, and that we're talking about the theories relating to those two worlds, but it remains the case that very very small things don't act like big things and vice versa.

 

[Random]

It's not a wow moment to me at all. Things like that happen to me all the time, - but only because I actively follow them up, because I know they're significant.

Have you ever won money on a seven-horse accumulator?

 

[Random]

Is it really, you don't say, thankyou so much for telling me, I'd never heard that before.

Why exactly do you think it's relevant to this discussion. I don't think it is at all.

I think you're confusing two issues. The current theories of the very small don't integrate with the current theories of the very large.

However the current reality of the very large obviously does integrate with the reality of the very small, as they're one and the same thing.

This being so, and given the experimental proofs of the real world effects of bell's theorem, it is to be expected that synchronicities occur above chance level

Whether this has any significance is a matter of personal opinion, I suppose, but, given the unbelievable oddness of a universe which is physically set up for synchronicity, (almost as if it were designed that way)- I think it would be surprising if it doesn't.

At any one point, the electrons in your atoms are at one of a series of set quantum states. But you can be in nantucket, or paris, or penge. Those little electrons's orbits are doing bugger all about that.

 

[danny la rouge]

Have you ever won money on a seven-horse accumulator?

Indeed.

Demosthenes, have you seen the Derren Brown episode about betting on horses? I think it was called The System. It explains exactly what you need to know, and I recommend you see it at the earliest opportunity.

 

[Random]

blimey, i was just looking at a website on stage magic and thinking about you danny, and then i clicked on this link and here you were talking about it!!!1111!!!!eleven!!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'm well aware, of course, that big things are composed of very very small things, and that we're talking about the theories relating to those two worlds, but it remains the case that very very small things don't act like big things and vice versa.

So there's two sets of rules, two sets of physics?

What happened to Occam's Razor?

 

[kyser_soze]

Well everything that is very large is made out the very very small. So if Bell's theorem applies to the very very small, then it applies to everything.

No it doesn't, because Bell's Theorem doesn't provide the final answer for marrying quantum theories with macro-scale theories of the universe, and it doesn't explain gravity either. So you're completely and utterly wrong on this point, meaning that you're completely and utterly wrong on the rest of your points. Indeed, you could be said to be:

 

[Demosthenes]

I'm well aware, of course, that big things are composed of very very small things, and that we're talking about the theories relating to those two worlds, but it remains the case that very very small things don't act like big things and vice versa.

Well there's an endless literature of significant synchronicities, that suggest that in this respect at least big things often do act in a similar way to small things. At the time of Jung, before the newish physical understanding of the universe, - synchronicity, though experienced by many, had literally no possible physical explanation. Now it does. Not a complete explanation, but at least it looks as if we live in the kind of universe where synchronicity would be possible. Combine that with the fact that lots of people think it happens, and happens a lot, and by a process of cumulative induction, or scientific method, you should frame the obvious hypotheses.

But you're arrogant enough to just assume that anyone who has had different experiences of life from you, and drawn different conclusions about it is a fruitloop, and have no hesitation in saying so. Undoubtedly, you think that I and probably most of humanity are fruitloops. That's why I called you ignorant and ill-informed.

I've never even done a seven-horse accumulator. Strikes me as a bad bet.

 

[danny la rouge]

blimey, i was just looking at a website on stage magic and thinking about you danny, and then i clicked on this link and here you were talking about it!!!1111!!!!eleven!!

It's because the last time we met I was sawing a woman in half, and you found my betting slip.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Well there's an endless literature of significant synchronicities, that suggest that in this respect at least big things often do act in a similar way to small things. At the time of Jung, before the newish physical understanding of the universe, - synchronicity, though experienced by many, had literally no possible physical explanation. Now it does. Not a complete explanation, but at least it looks as if we live in the kind of universe where synchronicity would be possible. Combine that with the fact that lots of people think it happens, and happens a lot, and by a process of cumulative induction, or scientific method, you should frame the obvious hypotheses.

But you're arrogant enough to just assume that anyone who has had different experiences of life from you, and drawn different conclusions about it is a fruitloop, and have no hesitation in saying so. Undoubtedly, you think that I and probably most of humanity are fruitloops. That's why I called you ignorant and ill-informed.

I've never even done a seven-horse accumulator. Strikes me as a bad bet.

 

[danny la rouge]

But you're arrogant enough to just assume that anyone who has had different experiences of life from you, and drawn different conclusions about it is a fruitloop, and have no hesitation in saying so.

You are making a big assumption. No, I generally save the epithet for people, like Jung, who propagate nonsense. You'll note I called Jung a loonspud, without adding "and all who read and agree with him".

It does amuse me, though, when people say things like "why do you have to rationalise everything?", as you did to me. In fact I don't. There is much I feel no need to rationalise. (In this instance, though, there is a perfectly rational explanation, so I prefer to use it). However, I could say "why do you feel the need to mystify everything". I don't say that, but if I did, no doubt you'd say I was being arrogant. There are double standards here. I'm arrogant and ignorant if I give my view, but you're not when you give yours.

 

[Demosthenes]

You are making a big assumption. No, I generally save the epithet for people, like Jung, who propagate nonsense. You'll note I called Jung a loonspud, without adding "and all who read and agree with him".

.

But the point is, what Jung says isn't nonsense, and he was not a loonspud.

 

[danny la rouge]

But the point is, what Jung says isn't nonsense, and he was not a loonspud.

In your view. I'm not going to call you arrogant for saying so, though.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

In your view. I'm not going to call you arrogant for saying so, though.

In my view as well.

The arrogance comes in calling someone who thought long and hard at putting together a coherent theory of psychiatry, one that has been accepted by many, a 'loonspud'.

 

[danny la rouge]

The arrogance comes in calling someone who thought long and hard at putting together a coherent theory of psychiatry, one that has been accepted by many, a 'loonspud'.

What's your view of synchronicity?

 

[Peakman]

Last year I read Carl Gustav Jung's autobiography after reading Jung's flying saucers as part of my university dissertation project. I followed that up by reading a few more biographies and Answer to Job. I was deeply affected by Jung's conception of life and spirituality. I had recently had a manic episode and his theories of the unconscious seemed to explain part of my mallady. What I can't quite square now is whether Jung had great insight into the human condition or whether he was just sick? The more I think about it the more I am coming to the conclusion that Jung was ill. I have only had one full blown psychic experience where I encountered a ghost, which unnerved me. But the more I think about that experience the more I am prone to put it down to the fact that my Risperidone (anti-psychotic medications that I take on a regular basis) wasn't at the right level. This is a more general problem I have with spirituality in general. From my own experiences and my experiences as a student of anthropology I am apt to accept the 'real' nature of psychic experiences but the more I ponder on them I am more apt to put them down to pathological causes rather than 'god'. I can't square the idea of 'god' with myself and this is something that was key to Jung's conception of the unconcious. Politically I am an anarchist and for me toomuch spirituality is opaque gobbledegook that just confuses people and can be used to manipulate them. Anyone got any thoughts?

Roger J Woolger, a Jungian psychotherapist's book "Other Lives. Other selves" throws allot of light upon the subject of "Hell". It would appear that via psychology we may be entering what until now has been the domain of religion.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What's your view of synchronicity?

I'm not familiar enough with it to make an informed comment.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm not familiar enough with it to make an informed comment.

Fair enough.

I feel I am, but can see why my distilled view seemed flippant.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Fair enough.

I feel I am, but can see why my distilled view seemed flippant.

I'm coming from this perspective: I've forgotten most of what I knew about Jung; but I knew a bit about him and what he said, when I took my degree. And at the time, he didn't stand out as being the most off the wall theoretician whom I had read.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm coming from this perspective: I've forgotten most of what I knew about Jung; but I knew a bit about him and what he said, when I took my degree. And at the time, he didn't stand out as being the most off the wall theoretician whom I had read.

Well, Memories, Dreams and Reflections in particular is entertaining. Not a difficult read at all. Give it another go, but watch the Derren Brown show first.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Well, Memories, Dreams and Reflections in particular is entertaining. Not a difficult read at all. Give it another go, but watch the Derren Brown show first.

I'd prefer to read the thing first before listening to the critics.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'd prefer to read the thing first before listening to the critics.

It isn't a critic. It makes no reference to Jung or synchronicity. It's just an entertaining programme about probability.

 

[gorski]

Oh, yeah, the mythological always had a lot of power....

 

[Demosthenes]

I came to the conclusion that to be fair, danny has a point.

there were times in Jung's life, when iirc, he was living in a hut having visions and drawing mandalas, and from a mainstream psychiatric perspective, at these times he was undergoing the kind of thing that is called psychosis, a term that is specially designed for its air of scientific authority, for all that it doesn't really mean much more than loonspud. And if he hadn't already been the respected dr Jung, or if he was just no-one in particular, and was doing the same thing now, well he'd almost certainly be rounded up and pumped full of "anti-psychotics", until he stopped it.

From my point of view that raises more questions about the sanity of the mainstream psychiatric perspective than it does about Jung's mental health, but, I'm bound to say that..

Apparently when Jung was interviewed on the bbc towards the end of his life, someone asked him if he believed in God, and he said, something along the lines of, -no, I know...- which I thoroughly approve of.

eta. I mean basically your choices on this one are quite limited, either you agree with Jung that he was having important revelatory spiritual experiences, or you have to say that he was undergoing a delusional psychosis.

 

[teahead]

Actually, I've changed my mind. I can't think of anything useful he said. It's all nonsense.

Wasn't his formulation about the collective unconscious the very first attempt to directly associate the influence of culture and individual perception? If someone did that earlier, sorry (beer hangover, not too sparky yet). If not, I think that's pretty funky.