Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00958)

Thank you for your comments John. I do not understand your very last 
line however.

As for Jung, I just put all of his books I own together so that I 
might better look at them as a whole, the writer I quoted stated that 
Jung was a 'psychologist' and this surprised me as well. That he 
broke from Freud "the godless Jew" by his own appellation, is a 
matter of history. But Freud was a psychiatrist, meaning that he 
employed the techniques of a psychiatrist and was an M.D. naturally. 
I think he is credited with inventing psychoanalysis (which I call 
unadulterated rubbish and quackery). I will check on Jung's 
credentials. But if he is a psychologist then he need only be a Ph.D. 
rather than and instead of an M.D.. 

Yes, psychology and psychiatry are two separate disciplines. One 
being an MD (psychiatry) and the other not even close to needing to 
be an MD. Do you know Ken Wilber's work? He is a transpersonal 
psychologist. However, he started off studying to be an MD. He does 
not ever have to deal with man as a physical being, but he is 
holistic in his approach nonetheless. This is a general description.

And yes, your points about I-I and Advaita are well taken.

That (MD part) might also explain why he may have broken with Freud. 
They differed on the 'God' part obviously. I think he might have also 
taken issue with Freud's "interpretation of dreams and 
his 'borrowing' of the Oedipal Complex" as a catch basin for every 
cause of man's psychoses and neuroses. And by Jung's eventual belief 
in Oriental thought he would HAVE to be diametrically opposed to such 
a simplification of life and its meaning. I think that IMO Freud was 
a wannabe Nietzsche, and I mean to do some research along those 
lines. But Jung's interpretations of Eastern thought and philosophy 
are of top quality IMO. 

One might define Truth as the 'absence of error' as you put it. But 
it is much much more than that. It is a constant presence which I 
believe can and must be attained to. I do believe in the Trinity and 
the Holy Spirit (aka Paraclete). I believe it to be a part of every 
human being. That is the only source of Truth for humanity and 
without it there is evil--evil within and without.

I tell everyone that the Middle Ages is the beginning of the 'New 
Age' and indeed it was at that time that the word 'modern' was 
coined. It informs much of what I KNOW now.

Netemara

******************







--- In theos-talk@y..., samblo@c... wrote:
> Netemara,
> Forgive me for using this e-mail to reply to your immediate 
previous 
> e-mail 
> which due to my ISP disconnecting me was lost in the midst of my 
reply.
> Thanks for your posts regards the Nag Hammadhi. I do have 
this inquiry 
> to make.
> It is my understanding that Carl Jung's Discipline was 
Psychiatry and 
> that he was
> the Founder of the Branch of Psychiatry named "Analytic 
Psychology." The 
> distinction being that there is a separate Discipline called 
Psychology, 
> is this not
> true?
> Although the recovered contents of what came to be the Jung 
codex 
> later became
> when published known as the Nag Hammadhi I recall that back in 
the period 
> of
> 1975 we all waited with baited breath for the first real 
Publication. As 
> the story was
> told then that each and every one of the Western Orthodox 
Religions 
> refused to 
> sponsor or fund the project of publication and were steadfastly 
against 
> it. I got one 
> copy of the first 15 copies in L.A. in 1977.
> 
> The survey you except regards the problem of "Evil" as 
viewed by 
> historical and
> contemporary scholars is interesting, however it may be that it 
is the 
> word concept
> itself as secondary production of the common universal 
conditioned 
> mindedness of 
> the humanity itself that presents the defined outline for us. 
One way 
> might be to go up
> a rung and instead of "Evil" contrast "Truth" when asking "what 
is Truth?" 
> a reply
> might be --- "The absence of error". In the context of gradient 
> Transcendental Truth
> completely fulfills the definition and the mechanics of the 
projection of 
> the Samsaric
> is universally inclusive of it's entirety whether Ego, Objects, 
Thought or
> Consciousness that matriculates Activity as such may be. All the 
Lila of 
> Vishnu
> is means of participation, the implication seems that the 
Timeless assumes
> Timeness as a Garb and Robe of Glory but being Veiled to the 
Hylic and 
> most of the 
> others, the interiorized subjectively and reactively become bond 
to the 
> "informing"
> authority of the conditioned mind. Finally they reach a point 
where the 
> strongest 
> pertinent guiding reality is "I am a body" , distinctions are 
carried 
> forward from there
> to further augment and make solid and most concrete anchor to 
materialism.
> 
> In your mention of the "I-I,I-It" and the other two 
conditional orders, 
> my reflection is
> that these are a restating of the structural form of the 
Dialectic Inquiry 
> of both the 
> Platonic and Katayapa systems anciently used in the East for 
arriving at 
> Truth.
> 
> The first Set:
> "What Happens if the contemplated Object"
> 
> "Is" or "Is Not"
> 
> The Second Set"
> "What Happens if the contemplated Object"
> Neither
> "Is" or "Is Not'
> 
> The Third Set:
> "What happens if the contemplated Object
> Simultaneously
> "Is" or "Is Not"
> 
> Now these Primary Sets where further inspected individually and 
wheeled 
> through
> the Secondary Conditionals vis:
> 
> Is or Is Not as regards "I-I (Self to Self")
> "I-It(Self to Another)
> "It-It (Another to Another)
> "We-We" (Another back to Self)
> 
> 
> Just as and aside many years ago in 1968 Scientology Called 
these 
> "Triple-flows
> and later Quad-flows", the difference being that they 
significantly 
> augmented the 
> process through the use of their "E-Meter technology."
> 
> Additionally a long list of "Perceptions" and "Somatics" then 
also 
> "wheeled to 
> encompass the Senses, Organs of Sense, etc. Now many of the 
current 
> people 
> not ever having exposure to the East they cannot connect the 
dots so to 
> speak
> as the time tried Old becomes the New.
> 
> I do hope you will post my in the genre of the current posts.
> 
> John