Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00188)

In a message dated 12/02/02 8:44:14 AM, netemara888@yahoo.com writes:

>I DON'T need your permission to be anything, including 'antisemitic.' 
>Don't address me you are not worthy.

Of course. Is any of us? But, who's the "judge" of that? Although, I take 
it your own worthiness is judged solely by yourself. It figures... 
Considering your habitual prejudicial judging of everyone and everything 
else. 

As for addressing you... Anyone who addresses me in such personal terms, 
deserves to be addressed back tit for tat. Besides, I don't "need your 
permission" to respond to any letter in open forum, as I please. 

How can (and where did) I give my "permission" for you to be, do or say 
anything you please? (But, you might try pausing to think a bit before you 
pop off your [not so "civil"] bons mots. :^) I was only surmising before, 
considering your not so subtle innuendoes -- so it's good to know now that 
you admit to being "antisemitic." BTW, if you don't like anyone considering 
and responding to whatever you say in whatever terms they please, don't post 
it on public forums. 

LHM

>Netemara
>
>************
>
>
>--- In theos-talk@y..., leonmaurer@a... wrote:
>> 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@y... 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
>