From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Tue Dec 31 2002 - 15:50:48 GMT
> Freud method was to study clusters of factors
> that are at the root of abnormal behavior.
> Jung thought the best way to describe developemnt
> of personality is an unfoldment of within.
> It is as though a purpose implicit in the nature of human organism
> is gradually emerging and maturing out of previous
> situations in which neither it nor its equivalent was
> contained. Observing this he saw the it is seriously
> misleading to reduce the creativity of the present
> moment to the psychic circumstances of the past.
>
>Freud's method can be dismissed in favor of Jung's.
>Jung viewed personality development as a flowering from within
>that depended less on life experience than an innate, teleological
>disposition of the person. He took stock in the beginner's mind.
No, D+. He found Freud's theories incomplete not wrong and should be
dismissed. His work is about incorporating the psychic
or inner life but he doesn't dissmiss life experience.
> Jung not only analytical and causal, but also synthetic and prospective in
> recognition that the human mind is characterized by causes as well as
> by fines (aims)....Causality is only one principle and psychology
> essentially cnnot be exhausted by causal methods only"
>
>Jung saw causality as well as fines at work in the human mind.
A, ooh sticking to the text refreshing.
> Teological pov is the conception of a final purpsose implicit
> in the seed of each organism with the life of the individual
> construed as the working out of that purpose.
> In the actuality of events, it is exceedingly to mark off
> where causality leaves off and teleology begins.
> Also the implicit purpose contain in an organism is not necessrily
> actualized and may be stunted or distorted.
>
>At the core of every person lies a purpose and the person spends
>his life trying to achieve it. Causality interferes with this
>purposeful activity but it's actually very [hard] to tell one from
>the other. If you let cause and effect rule your life and don't
>achieve your purpose then you are apt to become a retard.
C-. This is a retarded answer but I am going to give you a leeway because
I don't think it is fully explained and so will give
a fuller explanation in another post.
> Jung terms "meaningful coincidence" - the coming
> together by apparent chance of factors that are not causally linked but
> that nevertheless show themselves to be meaningfully related is at the
very
> heart of the process by which the individual life enfolds
> and becomes his "fate". Here teleology and contigency
> meet. They come together in framing the issue that is
> deepest and most difficult to which any study of man can address.
> Contigency he realized is not something that could be analyzed
> in a rational cause and effect. Even astrology for
> example loses whatever validity it might otherwise have
> when it is interpreted as a fixed system whose symbols
> have pretermined meanings.
>
>Seemingly chance events that have no causes but are meaningfully
>related are central to personality development and become the
>purpose for living. These events are really deep and really, really
>hard to figure out. You can't analyze it. This is fortunate because
>the lesson from astrology is that once you pin down the rules by
>which it's supposed to work, you find that it no longer does.
C no wait it was funny B-. I can this answer is more
conscious silliness then serious confusion but
I am going to explain this in another post more fully
too. I think I can clear this up if I explain how
the I Ching works. It's not that once you pin down
on how it supposed to work you find that it no longer does.
The symbols for interpretation are not predetermined.
You toss the coins while thinking about something.
These events do not appear causally related but
appear meaningfully related.
Can I assume from this answer that you don't understand
the I Ching and should explain it further or was that
an incorrect assumption?
In contrast Jung was impressed by I Ching.
> It is impossible to find the 'reason' behind the I Ching
> intellectually.
> The insights of the I Ching seem to involve a participation
> in the flow of events that manages somehow to reflect the chance factors
of
> time and individuality. This leads to the inference that, if we are to
> undrstand the aspects of contigency that are expressed in the individual
> personality, we must first find a means of bringing our thought
> into harmony with the movements of life out of which contigency
> emerges. In this sense, Jungs development of
> the Synchroncity principle may be intrpreted as an effort to describe
> a way of thinking or better a way of experience, that can
> comprehend the peculiar pattern of movement foudn in nonrational and
> noncausal phenomena. A key lies in that contigency is inherently an
> irrational factor.
> Causality, Teleology, Synchronicity--
> with Synchronicity balancing and complementing the other
> two. "
>
>Jung liked I Ching because, unlike astrology, you can't pin
>it down in the first place so no one can ever know if it's bunk.
>It's important for a person to be in the flow of the I Ching because
>it somehow focuses the proper chance events together at the same
>time on a given person. You can get into the flow by thinking in a
>certain irrational way, and in a sense this is what the development
>of the Synchronicity principle is all about.
F. LOL I can see you enjoy pissing on cherished Eastern
beliefs but I want to explain more for this answer
also. I see I have a lot of work to do and some may have
to wait to after the holiday.
But as you read my posts to help correct your
thoughtful answers try to pretend you have not
taken an oath to the scientific cult to never consider
ideas outside of your religion.
>How'd I do?
>Who is the author, by the way?
>Tsk, tsk, you're not referencing again, Erin.
>Glenn
Not too great but I haven't lost hope yet.
I still have hope you will be singing Dylan soon--
"I Was So Much Older Then, I'm Younger Than That Now"
Also I know it bothers you so that acausal is not in
the dictionary but 1. sychronicity is 2. I Ching is
older then the dictionary itself but feel free to keep
you head up your little Western modern butt.
Jung was/is ridiculed for not being "scientific" enough
so I am at all surprised at your reaction.
Also I did reference the author when I originally
submitted it to you.
I feel I have enough homework so you can go dig
into the archives if you want to know.
Erin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 31 2002 - 15:43:55 GMT