In reply to this comment by thinker247:
^ This is the first time I've ever read an entire wall of text.

Nobody can dismiss Jung by simplifying his ideas into structured belief and then relegating him to the position of a Baptist preacher who "knows" that God exists. Jung was more important than that. And even if he was entirely wrong, he still brought up many good debating points about existence (something in which we constantly stand on the precipice).

I don't believe in many of the things Jung said, but he didn't, either. He didn't need to believe, because he was happy enough with ideas. Beliefs are concrete. You don't change them with accompanying evidence; you remove them and formulate more hypotheses.

I think that death, on a scale of human understanding, is the end. Your brain rots and so goes your memories, which are the only aspects of your being which make you alive. But I could be wrong. Maybe what I see as evolved electronic impulses guided through neural pathways are actually pieces of God, whatever that may entail.

I'm willing to be wrong, as long as I can keep asking questions.


i wish i had the ability to write as congently as you just did.
but i do thank you for reading my "wall of text".
i said basically the same thing but in an extremely verbose way.
i want to have your babies.

^ This is the first time I've ever read an entire wall of text.

Nobody can dismiss Jung by simplifying his ideas into structured belief and then relegating him to the position of a Baptist preacher who "knows" that God exists. Jung was more important than that. And even if he was entirely wrong, he still brought up many good debating points about existence (something in which we constantly stand on the precipice).

I don't believe in many of the things Jung said, but he didn't, either. He didn't need to believe, because he was happy enough with ideas. Beliefs are concrete. You don't change them with accompanying evidence; you remove them and formulate more hypotheses.

I think that death, on a scale of human understanding, is the end. Your brain rots and so goes your memories, which are the only aspects of your being which make you alive. But I could be wrong. Maybe what I see as evolved electronic impulses guided through neural pathways are actually pieces of God, whatever that may entail.

I'm willing to be wrong, as long as I can keep asking questions.

>> ^Stormsinger:

I couldn't have said it better myself, gwiz665. I see this as a perfect case for applying the statement we all grew up hearing, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/berticus" title="member since April 18th, 2007" class="profilelink">berticus, I don't think Jung was nearly as bad as Freud. Freud was a flat-out obsessive nut. While Jung at least can retreat into the meaningless shadows of philosophy and pose as a playful game of "what if".


bingo!
finally got some commentary going.
usually it is only qwiz coming out to play.
let me preface this a bit so my words wont be misconstrued based on prejudices.
1.i am not a "god of gaps" person (lookin at you qwiz),i do not hide behind unknowns and claim that this is proof positive of a creators existence.
2.i find it intellectually dishonest to dismiss a persons entire lifes work based on either personal opinion or other arbitrary factors i.e:he was a paranoid coke-addled obsessive.so?he also was able to define,correctly i might add,a large part of our collective consciousness.carl jung believed in the divine,the spirit, does this belief negate ALL of his work and observations based on a single belief he had?one that you may disagree with?
think about that..i have talked to every one of you who has commented on this post and "stupid" is not a word i would use to define any of you.
3.give rougy a bit of slack.while i do not wish to speak for him..i am going to anyways.
while his statement "If you don't get it, there's no use explaining.

It's...wasted breath." may seem a bit like a slight or derogatory..it is not..it just comes across that way.
at its heart he is correct.if you dont understand or see things this way, any attempt to convey or explain will only lead to confusion or worse.
a good example is having a woman explain childbirth to a man.while the man may make a noble attempt to understand the intricacies of childbirth he will ultimately always fall short.
why?..he does not have a uterus.

and this leads me to why i respect jung and also my perplexion at why others here do not.jung questioned the unquantifiable.he searched and poked and prodded into a part of us he strongly suspected existed yet there is no actual evidence.what he found was strong coincidental evidence which shaped his thoughts and ideas concerning the divine/spirit/soul.let us add to this mans struggle the fact that he was dealing with a public which was still heavily influenced by theocracy and his ideas were actually pointing in a direction which would make theocracy not only definatively wrong but irrelevent.

this of course leads me to ask something that i am curious about.i understand you all may disagree with jung and that is your right.i also fully understand your dismissal of the spirit/divine/soul.here is what i do not understand:carl jung asked the hard questions and spent his life trying to not only to find the answers but understand the question better.
where are YOUR questions?
because i always see the dismissal.
i see the disagreement and many (thanks qwiz) actually post the reasons.
but WHERE ARE YOUR QUESTIONS?
at least jung had the balls to ask them.disagree with his conclusions all you wish but even he understood that at the end of the day...he could be wrong.
this is why i admire him so much,because while i may believe and feel my paradigm is correct i HAVE to leave room that not only may i be incorrect on some points,i may be totally wrong.i have to accept the fact that there may come a day when all that i think i know,believe, may have to be flushed down the toilet.

i do not see anyone here asking the questions.i see many residing safely in their preconceived ideologies that were propagated by others.(i am speaking in general,not directly at you guys).it is real easy to sit in such a safe corner and feel that your understanding of things is embedded in stone.a solid ground paved by others where everybody is all sitting in their armchairs looking down at those who question the established norms.this is not only intellectually dishonest but intellectually lazy.

i love discussing with qwiz.
why?he is an atheist..a rabid atheist.
i do the same with dag.
why?well if you ask both of them and others i have conversed with you would know that i have never attempted to convert,co-opt or coerce him into feeling believing anything other than who they are.
jung pushed the envelope.he pushed against barriers and asked the QUESTIONS.
r.d. lang did also but even i found lang a bit...out there.but i respected lang for pushing barriers and ignoring precedent.

i am rambling here so i will end this on this note:
disagree with jung all you wish but respect the fact that this man pushed the envelope.asked the questions that have no solid or easy answers and attempted to define consciousness.
where is YOUR contribution to this?
where are YOUR questions?
and would you have the courage to put your ideas out into the public arena?
or will you stay in the relative safety of your own certitude?

ask yourself.
WHO are YOU?
WHY are YOU here?
i do not care the answer because it is the question that reveals so much more.
and that my friends,is where poetry resides.

I couldn't have said it better myself, gwiz665. I see this as a perfect case for applying the statement we all grew up hearing, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

@berticus, I don't think Jung was nearly as bad as Freud. Freud was a flat-out obsessive nut. While Jung at least can retreat into the meaningless shadows of philosophy and pose as a playful game of "what if".

"You just don't get it."
Well, then it's probably not important. If an argument is not worth making, it's not worth hearing.

In the above video he says a lot of stuff that has no bearing on reality, if he is indeed right, I want more evidence than just him or you saying "It's true".

@enoch Concerning dreams; There's a big difference between perception of reality and actual reality. Just because you can imagine (dream) in a non-linear way, doesn't mean your brain processes it in a non-linear way. We can watch movies with skipping times as well (like pulp fiction, for instance) but that doesn't change that the movie plays forward one picture at a time.

I'm sure Jung was a brilliant guy, Freud too, but it seems clear that they make the same God of the Gaps in their time as many other brilliant men did as well. There's a sift with Neil deGrasse Tyson somewhere, where he talks about god of the gaps and the many brilliant men who fall back on that, when they can't explain something.

He bases his argument on "You can have dreams or visions of the future, only ignorance denies this" well, I think that's false. Our brain can guess and sometimes hit somewhat close to what actually happens, but the brain retroactively molds our memory to fit better, by only remembering some parts and forgetting others. I've not seen evidence yet of anyone being able to predict the future beyond the obvious or better than guesswork. So, that is a faulty assumption. Like he says in the latter part, he does not believe for the sake of believing, but if there's sufficient reason to believe a thing, he will believe it. That's a good way to go, but there's not enough reason to believe the mind is separate from the body. There are, on the other hand, plenty of evidence that we're confined in our bodies.

>> ^rougy:

>> ^berticus:
jung had salient insights into human consciousness?
where?
next you'll be telling me freud was really great too.

If you don't get it, there's no use explaining.
It's...wasted breath.
He coined the term "synchronicity" which so many have tried to denigrate into "coincidence."
But it is much more than that, and only the aware will comprehend.
He recognized the archetypes that transcended cultures, around the world, through the centuries.
Anybody who calls bullshit on C.G. Jung hasn't done his homework.

>> ^berticus:

jung had salient insights into human consciousness?
where?
next you'll be telling me freud was really great too.


If you don't get it, there's no use explaining.

It's...wasted breath.

He coined the term "synchronicity" which so many have tried to denigrate into "coincidence."

But it is much more than that, and only the aware will comprehend.

He recognized the archetypes that transcended cultures, around the world, through the centuries.

Anybody who calls bullshit on C.G. Jung hasn't done his homework.

jung had salient insights into human consciousness?

where?

next you'll be telling me freud was really great too.

I respect him for pushing people to think about dreams. Jung was most prominent in the philosophy of dreams. He may not be strictly science but he was a genius. I disagree with his theist views and his psychological theories as a whole but he got a lot of people thinking. So I respect the man.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I think he makes some assumptions that are plain wrong. It is a bastard child of the God of the Gaps, but he recovers in the last part of the video.

I do think as long as our minds are confined in our body, as it indeed seems it is right now, then death is the end of the mind. The second we can make a distinction between brain and mind - which I think we can like hardware and software - then the death of the body in inconsequential to the mind if we manage to keep a backup or to transfer out of the body in time.

The future will be interesting.

jung was a humanist.
that might help to understand the content of his words.
brilliant man.

i responded to your comment but i felt it only honest to post on your page.
here is what i posted:

oh come on rebuilder.
i understand you may disagree but you watch a 4 minute video and conclude this mans statement is nonsense.
ok...fair enough.
so..rebuilder.
are you telling us that you do not experience dreams?
that if and when you do these dreams are entirely linear in nature?
they follow the confines of the measurement of time?
really?
reeeeeally?
is THIS what you are trying to tell us all?
disagree with jung all you like but please my friend and i say this in the most gentle and human way:
think before you speak.

have you ever read any of jung's work?
while not as influential as freud and not nearly as controversial as R.D lang jung has offered some very salient insights into the human consciousness.
he was a humanist.

oh come on rebuilder.
i understand you may disagree but you watch a 4 minute video and conclude this mans statement is nonsense.
ok...fair enough.
so..rebuilder.
are you telling us that you do not experience dreams?
that if and when you do these dreams are entirely linear in nature?
they follow the confines of the measurement of time?
really?
reeeeeally?
is THIS what you are trying to tell us all?
disagree with jung all you like but please my friend and i say this in the most gentle and human way:
think before you speak.

have you ever read any of jung's work?
while not as influential as freud and not nearly as controversial as R.D lang jung has offered some very salient insights into the human consciousness.
he was a humanist.

You either get Jung, or you don't.

To me, he's most wise and I hear no falseness in his words.

I like that part where he said something about "look ahead, not behind, because if you keep looking back you become paralyzed."

I've experienced that as being true, in real world terms, just recently.

A *quality post.

>> ^rebuilder:

The things people take seriously...


yeah..
carl jung.
pfffft what would he know.....

>> ^Trancecoach:
"We are born at a given moment in a given place and like vintage years of wine we have the qualities of the year and of the season in which we are born. Astrology does not lay claim to anything else." - C.G.Jung


Ah, so I am 365 days long, cold, and a bit oaky. Thanks Carl!

"We are born at a given moment in a given place and like vintage years of wine we have the qualities of the year and of the season in which we are born. Astrology does not lay claim to anything else." - C.G.Jung