Guest guest Posted August 13, 1999 Report Share Posted August 13, 1999 For one to understand Jung, one must 'become' the consciousness of Jung ... not read his words to debate the meaning, but read the spaces in between the words to see where the words are coming from ... Thank you, Gene for showing me that you have not read Jung's words ... but have 'read' the spaces inbetween Jung's words ... Deep Bow Christopher - ==Gene Poole== <magus < > Saturday, 14 August 1999 4:52 Re: ZenBob/Cosmology of Consciousness > magus (==Gene Poole==) > > HS > > Re: ZenBob/Cosmology of Consciousness > > > ZEN2WRK > > Re: Re: Unconscious/correction if you please... > > > > Dear Gene: > > > > I enjoyed reading your remarks about Jung and the levels of the conscious, > > unconscious and superconscious (when available, as it usually is booked up > > solid). > > Thanks, ZB. Even though, I hope I was clear that I do not 'believe' in > levels. I see the language of the great analysts as revealingly > metaphorical, as pointing, but not literal in 'meaning'. > > For us to really, actually _know_ anything, we must have at least _one_ > real thing to know, as the root-object for the process of ongoing > comparison. Like in mathmatics... the '1' is the root-object, from which > all other numbers spring. If there is no '1', there can be no equation... > > > I enjoyed the reading of Jung far more than reading Adler or Freud, as I > > believe that Jung did not relate everything to guilt, to complex or to > > residual imprinting on a psychoanalytical level. His understanding of > > patterns, imprinting and even of transference, entrainment and he role of the > > subconscious as a powerful instrument of adaptation (even when it is working > > in a manner that is distorted) are clear and concise. > > Yes, well put. It seems to me that Jung knew... the incredible danger > inherent in taking himself seriously. He posited only speculation, as a > trail of bread-crumbs for others. He understood, that if you want > delightful playmates, that 'you have to create them'. > > > Jung was no doubt somewhat influenced by many of the experiences of religious > > ecstasy and of the writings of the Jains, Buddhists and other mystics on the > > topic of "No mind." Jung's practical nature seemed to accept many > > fascinating aspects of the power of the mind rather better than many > > scientists studying today. I often wonder why. > > Have you read his autobiography; "Memories, Dreams, and Reflections"? > > Jung had vast interior space, compared to 'most other people'. He could > entertain within himself, without attachment, complicated arrays of > theoretical entities. It was there, that he discovered the 'archetypes of > the collective unconscious'. Among those, he found the 'wise old man', who > is a kind of redeemer, a wisdom teacher... a Guru. > > I feel that people do not understand that Jung practiced, very > deliberately, a discipline of _resisting coming to conclusion_. If you > think about it, such can be responsible for the unending outpouring of his > creativity. He seldom stated anything as 'final and complete'. It is he who > we have to thank, for the concept of the 'shadow', the understading of > which can 'explain' what evil 'is'... > > > All of this begs the question (Zen question) of who asks "who am I" in the > > mind, and if the subconscious which is an 80% stockholder in all of our > > actions has been involved in that inner dialogue at all. I am tempted into > > accepting the school of thought (big irony here) that we do not in fact > > really "think" at all, but merely are machines capable of retransposing > > memorized ideas and linking phrases and words to impulses and feelings. This > > does not mean that we do not feel, but it indicates that what we say and > > think we mean, when we speak or write is not related very closely to what we > > are about on an interior level. > > You point to the human Being as a 'transaction engine', and I tend to > agree, at least to the degree that 'transaction' is what is going on 99% of > the time. Grace gives... the remaining 1%. That ratio can be changed! > > > Many Buddhists would agree, as "right action" is as important as right > > "speech" or right "thinking." > > > > Blessings, > > Love, > > > > Zenbob > > Yes... one who realizes Empty Dharma... knows what is 'right'. > > Thank you, ZenBob > > ==Gene Poole== > > > > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > How do you enter ONElist's WEEKLY DRAWING for $100? > By joining the FRIENDS & FAMILY program. For details, go to > /info/onereachsplash3.html > > ------ > Eat Raw Foods and You Will Never be Constipated! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.