Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00151)

Maybe you should read Jung's book, "Moses and Monotheism," and his 
introduction to the Wilhelm/Bains translation of the I-Ching -- before 
pontificating on what is and is not "a matter of history." Your opinionated 
"finger pointing" prejudices and anti semitism, without appropriate 
references, are beginning to be obvious and tiresome.

LHM

In a message dated 12/01/02 12:08:40 AM, netemara888@yahoo.com writes:

>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