jungy bits

re post below on economics... munny.

Stephen, I feel like the biologist speaking to the musician physicist (you). The accord with nature I mentioned assumes the STP-ness of biological systems. Lewis Thomas best delineates that paradigm, I think. It's essential to my understanding of Jung, who was -- after all -- a physician first. The principle of homeostasis is paramount. Equilibrium, balance. Thus Jung's emphasis on compensation.

And I disagree enormously, alice, that we're getting away from Jung here. If the current mass-mind reflected (or hinted at) in what's happening in economics and politics isn't Jung, then, I ask myself, why am I here?

If Jung is not the hope of the vast collective soup of Participation Mystique bringing its foibles to consciousness, I don't know what is. Age of Aquarius, 2012. The Rapture. Dangerous manipulations and course corrections: enantiodromic dramas.

The kids in the maush pit and those who have made the journey trough madness are better prepared to navigate these seas, I suspect (or will at least consider). At least they have an awareness of the limits, the size and strength, of the boat -- their ego -- that carries them.

So many think they are the sea.

Was Jung not looking for a science, a discipline, that could provide a foundation, a perspective, for looking at the wholeness of the experience of being human? All from the in vivo perspective of including psyche whole -- which means including the uc which is cast away, ignored, blinded-from-view-by-the-vast-white-light of (positivistic) Rationalism and Religion. Or for that matter, any dogma.

Tools, perspectives, suspicions, all trying to grasp what is beyond vision. They cull suspicions of the shadow, personal and collective. To solidify it is to have it escape any possible grasp, to even lose the mere intuition of its feel as it slides away, and turns into -- whatever we may decide it is. Mere reconstructed "memory."

Dreams. Astrology, imho, included. Even archetype*. And that slippery escape of "meaning" also applies to everything I have just expressed.

Gnosis and agnosis: I do deem them helpful jinns.

Years ago I dreamt of the goldfish: "I’ve noticed so many cars on the US highways sporting fish symbols, and last night I dreamt about a huge goldfish, as big as two hands. I was going from house to house (salesman?!) up in some green hilly country, all of them owned by strangers. Over and over I would be sitting at the table, and an animal - cat, dog, nothing exotic - would come and swallow the fish whole and then throw it back up. Repulsive, yes? The thing wouldn’t die. The image and color was very distinct. Beautiful and repulsive..."


------------------------------

*Been thinking that so much stress and bold fonting on the concept of archetype is turning it into a functional distortion. Descriptive of an unknown of unknowable origins, it creates a working space to conjecture about certain ineffable shared human experiences. Gnowing is a good term for this sort of conjecture. But that gnowing is being pumped up into an absolute -- which works to create shadows. Jung talks about our attitude towards the unconscious and the way that attitude affects all sides of individual experience and perception. Coming from the other direction, people are being judged by their charts, their dreams, their -- well. I don't think it's helpful. It isn't what Jung "believed," in imho. Jung was looking beyond mechanisms of cultural transmission, conjecturing, taking the point to its end: making a model and filling it in. It's what philosophers do. And as we create this Cosmos, I'm merely adding this as a nudge.

----------------------
ps. grok. bless you child. YES.

Narcissus & Goldman:



(comments: click on date below.)